Srinagar, Jul 5: A Court in Uri has accepted a police closure report in an FIR registered under the Enemy Agents Ordinance (EIMCO) and the Immigration and Foreigners Act, holding that the investigation failed to establish any material linking the accused with anti-national activities or illegal cross-border movement.
Judicial Magistrate Uri Mahmud Anwar Alnasir, in a detailed judgment accepted the closure report filed by Police Station Uri in FIR No. 54/2026 and discharged accused Zeeshan Ahmed Mir, a resident of Khwaja Bandi.
According to the prosecution, personnel of 12 Grenadiers, Rustam Battalion, while conducting surveillance operations near Masjid Nala on May 31, apprehended a suspicious individual after he allegedly attempted to flee during questioning. The Army subsequently handed him over to Police Station Uri, where an FIR was registered under Sections 2 and 3 of the EIMCO Ordinance and Section 21 of the Immigration and Foreigners Act.
During the investigation, police seized mobile phones, SIM cards, a train ticket and other documents. The mobile phones were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination, while investigators also sought call detail records, internet protocol data records and other electronic evidence.
However, after completing the investigation, the Investigating Officer concluded that no prosecutable case was made out and submitted a closure report before the court.
Concurring with the findings of the Investigating Officer, the court observed that the prosecution had failed to produce credible evidence to substantiate the allegations levelled against the accused.
The court also observed that there was no notification on record declaring the place from where the accused was apprehended to be a prohibited, protected or restricted area requiring special permission for entry.
The court held that in the absence of evidence showing illegal border crossing, subversive intent, sabotage, anti-national activity, or any threat to the sovereignty and integrity of India, the essential ingredients of offences under the EIMCO Ordinance were not made out.
Holding that the investigation had rightly concluded the case to be “not admitted” for want of evidence, the magistrate accepted the closure report, discharged the accused from his personal bond and sureties, and directed that all seized property, including the accused’s mobile phones and another phone seized from another person, be released to their respective owners in accordance with law.
About The Author
