Supreme Court Refuses Early Release of Terror Convict, Allows Challenge to J&K Remission Policy
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday refused to grant premature release to Ghulam Mohammad Bhat, who was convicted in a triple murder case allegedly connected to a terrorist act.
A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and SVN Bhatti, however, permitted Bhat to challenge the remission policy of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir by filing an interim application in a related pending case.
Bhat had sought early release, citing over 27 years of incarceration.
During the hearing, the prosecution argued that explosive materials, including a grenade from an Under Barrel Grenade Launcher (UBGL), were recovered from the crime scene. Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj contended that the killings were carried out to punish civilians suspected of aiding the Army, making it an act of terrorism and rendering Bhat ineligible for early release.
“The act was designed to instill fear and discourage cooperation with lawful authorities. This is not a mere murder; it constitutes a terrorist act,” Nataraj submitted.
The bench concurred, observing, “If the purpose of the crime was to terrorize and deter individuals from siding with the law, it clearly bears the traits of a terrorist act.” The court added, “Even if TADA was not invoked during the trial, the court is not barred from evaluating the true nature of the offence for the purpose of remission.”
Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, representing Bhat, countered that his client had only been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC (murder) and the Arms Act, not under any anti-terror laws such as TADA.
“There was no finding by the trial or high court that this was a terrorist act,” Gonsalves argued, citing examples of similarly convicted individuals who were granted premature release.
However, the bench remained unconvinced, stating, “We are inclined to view the act as intended to send a chilling message to those cooperating with authorities. We cannot ignore such a motive.”
When Gonsalves pointed to other cases of early release, the bench highlighted the lack of the applicable J&K remission policy on record. “Without the remission policy, how can we draw meaningful comparisons?” the court questioned.
The bench then allowed Bhat’s counsel to file an interim application challenging the J&K remission policy in the connected case.
