STRUCTURES OF VIOLENCE

241 | Structures of Violence
Further, he was forced to sign a statement by the
Chekseri Camp that the army had no role in the
incident. Further, he states he spent an enormous
amount in the search for his son and for seeking
justice. The father received Rs. 1,00,000 as ex-gratia
government relief after the recommendation of State
Human Rights Commission [SHRC] but no
compassionate employment under SRO-43 [Statutory
Rules and Orders].
The family of Ghulam Mohammad Mir gave a
statement to the IPTK on 12 December 2011.
First Information Report [FIR] no. 260/2000 u/s 346
[Wrongful connement in secret] was led at Pattan
92
Police Station on 11 November 2000. The victim
was a taxi driver and he was driving near the RR
Hyderbeigh army camp on 15 October 2000 when
the army people from Chekseri took him. The victim
was told that he would be released the next day. By
communication dated 22 April 2014 from the Jammu
and Kashmir Police a copy of the FIR and closure
report were provided. But, the police also stated that
the “nal report” is not available. By communication
dated 6 January 2015 information was provided that
the case was closed as untraced on 18 September
2006 but that the nal report had not been prepared.
The family of the victim led a petition before the High
Court of Jammu and Kashmir [HCP 264/2002, a
habaes corpus petition] seeking a judicial enquiry. The
Defence Ministry, Union of India, and Captain Gurjeet
Singh Sandal stated that the mine blast on 14 October
2000 took place on the Pattan Nihalpora road and not
in Watipura. Further, no person of the unit was injured.
The victim was not picked up. Finally, that Captain
Gurjeet Singh Sandal was not “on the strength of the
unit on 14 October”. He reported to the unit on 6
January 2001.
The petition was dismissed on 23 November 2004.
The main reason, and arguably the only reason given
[as the other arguments of the respondents are
referred to but do not appear to have been the reason
for the disposal], for disposing the petition was that the
petitioners in their petition had stated on one occasion
that “all the persons arrested were released within 25
days”. The High Court understood this to mean that the
victim had also been released.
On 30 September 2004 the State Human Rights
Commission [SHRC], approached by the family of the
victim, issued its nal decision implicating Captain
Gurjeet Singh Sandal, and recommended ex-gratia
government relief of Rs.1,00,000, compassionate
employment under SRO-43 [Statutory Rules and
Orders] and recommended that the investigation in the
case be completed as soon as possible.
On inaction of the SHRC recommendations, another
petition was led before the High Court [Original Writ
Petition (OWP) 265/2008] seeking that investigations
i n t h e c a s e b e c o m p l e t e d , t h e S H R C
r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s b e a c t e d u p o n , f u r t h e r
compensation of Rs.15,00,000 be paid, that the
graves in the State be investigated and DNA testing be
done.
On 9 April 2008 the Court ordered that the
recommendations of the SHRC be implemented and
stated that on the issue of investigations the matter
could be agitated before the concerned Chief Judicial
Magistrate [CJM].
Information on the petition numbers was sought
through the Jammu and Kashmir Right to Information
Act, 2009 [RTI] on 16 February 2012. Information was
provided.
On 23 April 2010, the ofce of the District Magistrate,
Baramulla, after enquiry, stated that the victim could
be presumed to be dead.
As a preliminary point, there appears to be a
contradiction in the position taken by Union of India
and Captain Gurjeet Singh Sandal before the High
Court in HCP 264/2002 that the alleged perpetrator
was not at the alleged position during the time of the
incident, and the position taken by the police
authorities. A report dated 6 April 2001 by the Station
House Ofcer [SHO] of Pattan Police Station
implicates Captain Gurjeet Singh Sandal in the
incident [referring to him as the “incharge camp 29 RR
Cheekseri”]. Further, a report from the Senior
Superintendent of Police [SSP], Baramulla dated 4
June 2001 to the SHRC also implicates the alleged
perpetrator in the abduction of the victim.
The 30 September 2004 SHRC nal decision was
based on a police report. The police report stated that
“during the course of investigation the witnesses have
deposed that troops of 29 RR Camp Cheksari headed
by Captain Gurjit Singh Sandal lifted said Ghulam
Mohammad Mir son of Khaliq Mir resident of Kalsar
Pattan.” The police also noted that no cooperation was
received from the army in the investigations.
There is also a letter dated 4 June 2001 from the SSP,
Baramulla to the SHRC on record. This letter also
conrms that the victim was apprehended by troops
under the command of the alleged perpetrator and that
the taxi of the victim was found outside the
“Hyderbagh” camp. The SHRC then heard further
evidence from witnesses and concluded that the victim
was abducted by Captain Gurjeet Singh Sandal,
“Camp Hyderbegh Yedipora Pattan” and that it could
be presumed that he had been “liquidated while in
custody”. The SHRC also stated that it was
“disappointing to nd that in this case also state police
has failed to complete the investigation because of
non-cooperation from the Army”.
A nal point to be made is the unfortunate order of 23
November 2004 of the High Court. Any reading of the
petition of the victim's family could lead a reader to only
one conclusion: that the victim was never released.
But, the High Court unfortunately focused on one line,
completely out of context, and dismissed the petition.