The Supreme Court on Monday declined to grant premature release to Ghulam Mohammad Bhat, a convict serving a life sentence in a triple murder case allegedly linked to a terrorist act. However, the court permitted Bhat to challenge the remission policy of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir in a separate, ongoing matter.
A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and SVN Bhatti delivered the order while hearing Bhat’s plea for early release on the ground that he has spent over 27 years in prison. Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves appeared for Bhat, while Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj represented the Union Territory.
Bhat was convicted of killing three civilians in an alleged attack targeting an Army informer. According to the prosecution, Bhat entered the residence of the informer and opened fire with an AK-47 rifle, killing the occupants. Explosives, including a grenade compatible with an under-barrel grenade launcher, were also reportedly recovered from the crime scene.
Arguing against remission, ASG Nataraj submitted that the nature of the crime went beyond ordinary murder, stating, “The act was intended to create fear and deter cooperation with lawful authorities. This goes beyond a simple murder.”
The bench concurred, observing, “If the act was committed to create fear, to ensure that no one dares to side with the law, then it certainly carries the characteristics of a terrorist act.” The judges also clarified that even though TADA (Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act) was not invoked during trial, courts are not precluded from assessing the true nature of the offence when evaluating remission eligibility.
Gonsalves countered that Bhat had been convicted only under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (murder) and the Arms Act, and that no anti-terror law was applied by the trial or appellate courts. He cited similar cases where convicts were granted premature release.
The court, however, remained unpersuaded, stating, “We tentatively agree that the act appears aimed at sending a message that those who cooperate with authorities will face lethal consequences. We cannot turn a blind eye to such implications.”
When Gonsalves sought parity with other convicts who had been released early, the bench questioned the absence of the Jammu and Kashmir remission policy in the record. “We don’t have the remission policy before us. Without it, how can we draw analogies?” the court remarked.
