STRUCTURES OF VIOLENCE

175 | Structures of Violence
perusing the chargesheet prepared by the police
against him, it would be difcult to comment on his
involvement. Admittedly, barring the principle of
command responsibility, his role is presently unclear.
The fourth reason, while persuasive if true, cannot be
commented on presently as no ofcial leave
documents have been provided. The fth reason for
the denial of sanction, while apparently persuasive, is
c l e a r l y m i s l e a d i n g . A s t a t e m e n t b y t h e
Lambardar/Sarpanch of the Malangam village eight
years after an incident, in very general terms, is not
convincing. This statement may have had more
persuasive value if it was a specic denial of the instant
incident being discussed. Further, the evidentiary
value of such a statement is highly doubtful and it is
most unfortunate that the Ministry of Defence would
use such a piece of evidence to deny sanction for
prosecution. With no information on the antecedents
of the Numberdar/Sarpanch, or his breadth of
knowledge of events in 1992, or when and under what
circumstances his statement was placed on record, it
is a highly unreliable piece of evidence. Further, the
family of the victim states that there was no elected
Sarpanch in the year 2000. He was a surrendered
militant closely associated with the army. This case
serves as a striking example of how the army
undermines and subverts the processes of justice by
making use of close associates or paid informers.
Therefore, in conclusion, the instant case appears to
be a clear case of disappearance, despite certain
ambiguities that are admittedly present. But, one might
certainly argue that the correct forum to deal with such
ambiguities might well be a courtroom. Therefore,
perhaps sanction for prosecution should have been
granted, especially against Major R.P. Singh and
Major R.D. Singh. Further, the available documents do
not suggest that even a Court-Martial was conducted
in this case by the army.
Case No. 17
Victim Details
Sajad Ahmad Bazaz [Enforced Disappearance]
Age: 22
Occupation: Student / Shopkeeper
Son of: Ghulam Ahmad Bazaz
Resident of: Hazratbal, Srinagar
Alleged Perpetrators
th
1. Deputy Commandant D.S. Rathore, 30
Battalion Border Security Force [BSF]
th
2. Head Constable Kartar Chand Raina, 30
Battalion Border Security Force [BSF]
th
3. Head Constable Shoni Lal, 30 Battalion
Border Security Force [BSF]
4. Azad Ahmad Mir, son of Mohammad Sultan
Mir, [Operational name: Asgar], Informer,
Border Security Force [BSF]
5. Vinod Kumar, Border Security Force [BSF]
Case Information
Sajad Ahmad Bazaz was picked up on 12 February
th
1992 by personnel of the 30 Battalion BSF.
th
Subsequently, Captain Anil Pal, 69 Battalion BSF,
based in Sanatnagar, admitted to the family of Sajad
Ahmad Bazaz that the victim was picked up by one
battalion and transferred to another battalion of the
BSF.
Further, K. Narendra Koshar of the Intelligence Bureau
hinted to the family of the victim that the victim was with
“them” and he provided them with an identier – wound
on the right hand of the victim – which the family
recognized. Further, the family of Sajad Ahmad Bazaz
states that this wound, received due to a household
accident, was used by the authorities to slap a false
case on the victim alleging that the injury took place
across the border in Pakistan.
Sajad Ahmad Bazaz's arrest was the fall out of an
altercation he had with the “Cat” [Informer], Azad
Ahmad Mir, who owed him over Rs.1000 and had
refused to pay.
The family of Sajad Ahmad Bazaz gave a statement to
the IPTK on 27 February 2012.
First Information Report [FIR] no.44/1992 u/s 342
[Wrongfully conning person] Ranbir Penal Code,
1989 [RPC] was led at the Nigeen Police Station on
25
27 June 1992 . The 21 December 2011
communication from the Jammu and Kashmir Police
stated that the case was closed as charge sheeted
and led by the Crime Branch, Kashmir before the
court on 19 June 2004 against Azad Ahmad Mir. By
communication dated 30 November 2013 it was reiterated
that the case was investigated by the Crime
Branch Srinagar. By communication dated 22 April
2014 from the Jammu and Kashmir Police
information was provided that the chargesheet in the
case had been led before a competent court by the
Crime Branch.
The Government of Jammu and Kashmir, in response
to information sought through the Jammu and Kashmir
Right to Information Act, 2009 [RTI] on sanctions for
prosecutions under Armed Forces (Jammu and
Kashmir) Special Powers Act, 1990 [AFSPA], stated
on 6 September 2011 in relation to this case that
sanction had been sought from the Ministry of Defence
on 24 January 2003 and was awaited. Reference is
only made to Deputy Commandant D.S. Rathore.
The family of Sajad Ahmad Bazaz led a petition
25 Information on this FIR was sought through the Jammu and Kashmir Right to Information Act, 2009 [RTI] on 7 October 2011. By
communication dated 21 December 2011 from the Jammu and Kashmir Police a copy of the FIR was provided. Further information sought
through RTI on 15 October 2013. Further information sought through RTI dated 14 November 2014.