Home / Latest News / District & Sessions Judge asks Magistrate: Do you know the Procedure established by Law

District & Sessions Judge asks Magistrate: Do you know the Procedure established by Law

September,20,2016:

Magistrate was personally summoned to submit an explanation

Human-rights-defender-khurram-parvez
Human-rights-defender-khurram-parvez

The detention orders of prominent Human Rights defender Khurram Parvez was passed by a Magistrate without even seeing him personally.

He also did not issue a show cause for bail bond, as required by the law, before sending him to judicial custody.

Lately J&K Police has put Khurram under preventive detention after they picked him up from his home on Thursday at 11.45 PM  because they “apprehend he may cause a breach of peace”.

As per the Sections (107/151 CrPC) of the law invoked by the police against Khurram, he would have been released on a personal bond with or without sureties but the police didn’t allow that to happen.

The matter came up for hearing on Tuesday before the Principal District and Sessions Judge Srinagar.

Magistrate Mohammad Amin Najar, who is a Revenue officer, remained silent to the query. However he maintained that as Khurram is a Handicapped person, he was sitting is a Jeep and could not walk upto the Court.

While reprimanding the Magistrate, the District Judge asked him if he knew anything about the procedure established by Law.

Khurram Parvez  is Chairperson of Asian Federation Against Involuntary Disappearances (AFAD) and Programme coordinator of J-K Coalition of Civil Society (JKCCS) Khurram.

He allegedly incited people to shout slogans and march towards Tourist Reception Center”.

Khurram was represented by several lawyers when they challenged the Magisterial order of his detention terming it “illegal.”

Facebook Comments

Check Also

Death penalty

Death penalty to six persons for Conspiring and Killing a Dalit youth, in case of murder perpetrated due to Caste-Based Discrimination

December 14,2017: Court has ordered to collect a total compensation of Rs 11,95,000 from eight convicts which needed to be paid in the different proportions to Kausalya, Shankar’s father and Government. A trial court has here awarded death penalty to ...

2 comments

  1. Bit Bikram SinghDeo

    Excellent analysis of law.

  2. “Unless the matter is concluded, no one should be dispossessed from their residential house”

    Last column on on page 6 of Mumbai Mirror today … Bhujbal case .

    This basic law forgotten by Judges in my case … while the fake case of trespassing filed in 2005, remains in deep freeze… we were forcibly evicted from our only residential house in 2013. The deep freeze continues even 3 years after our forcible eviction.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *