Onlykashmir.in News Desk
The 2nd Additional Sessions Court, Srinagar, on Friday declined to extend interim bail granted to Junaid Qureshi in a case involving an alleged assault on his father, ruling that fresh developments placed before the court, including CCTV footage and a deterioration in the victim’s medical condition, weighed against continuing his interim liberty.
The court was hearing an application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with FIR No. 83/2026 registered at Police Station Nishat under Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the provisions that have replaced the earlier Criminal Procedure Code and Indian Penal Code sections in such matters.
According to the court’s order, the victim, identified as Mohammad Hashim Qureshi and named as the applicant’s father, sustained a deep, lacerated head injury after allegedly being pushed down from an attic or staircase area. The Investigating Officer informed the court that the victim’s condition had since deteriorated and that he was currently admitted in the ICU, a development that appears to have significantly influenced the court’s assessment of the bail application.
The court recorded that CCTV footage produced by the Investigating Officer appeared, on a prima facie view, to show the applicant pushing the victim, who then fell down the stairs and sustained the head injury. It clarified, however, that this observation did not amount to a final finding on the admissibility or evidentiary value of the electronic material, which remains a matter for later stages of the proceedings.
The prosecution had opposed continuation of the interim bail, alleging that Qureshi had not made a full and candid disclosure of his criminal antecedents while seeking the relief. The court noted that the mere registration of another FIR cannot by itself be treated as proof of guilt, but held that the manner in which an applicant discloses or withholds material antecedents can still be relevant to the exercise of discretionary bail jurisdiction, a distinction the order took care to spell out.
The court also observed that the victim was the applicant’s aged father, noting that the human dimension of the case could not be entirely overlooked, while explicitly clarifying that this consideration did not amount to any finding of guilt against the accused. It further noted that while the investigation had substantially progressed, the subsequent developments, particularly the CCTV footage and the victim’s worsening condition requiring ICU admission, had to be weighed in deciding whether the limited interim liberty already granted should continue.
Taking all of this into account, the court declined the prayer for continuation or extension of interim bail and directed that Qureshi be taken into custody and handed over to the concerned police station for further proceedings in accordance with law. The court clarified that its observations regarding the CCTV footage, the victim’s medical condition and the alleged criminal antecedents were confined strictly to the question of interim liberty and would not prejudice either the accused or the prosecution at the appropriate stage of the trial.
