The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court overturned an order directing the Anti Corruption Bureau to investigate how a litigant obtained the detention order and some official communications prior to the order's execution on December 26, stating that such documents issued by a public servant are supposed to be in the public domain and that they were neither classified nor pertaining to official secrets.

The Court said "In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, that the court has to look into the veracity and admissibility of the documents produced and relied upon, instead of going into as to how they were procured, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the writ court was not the correct view to reject the petition on the ground, that the documents had not been legitimately obtained".

In its ruling on an appeal challenging the single bench order to dismiss a habeas corpus petition, the division bench comprising Justices Sindhu Sharma and MA Chowdhary issued the following. The Director of the Union Territory of J&K's Anti-Corruption Bureau was also tasked by the single bench in its ruling to find out how the papers were acquired.

Regarding the availability of a copy of the detention order to the appellants at the pre-execution stage, the appellant's counsel objected to the impugned directions, arguing that they were unwarranted and outside the purview of the court because the single judge had not requested an explanation or response from the appellants regarding how the copy of the order came into their possession.

The appellant argued that the learned Single Judge should not have given the appellants in this case such orders, which, if upheld, would subject them to police harassment and even arrest for no reason of their own or for any action that could be considered criminal in nature.

In response to this claim made by the appellant, the bench noted that no serious stance should have been taken because it was up to the Writ Court to rely or not depend on the documents submitted, but it wasn't necessary for it to consider the issue of where those documents had come from.

The bench cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Umesh Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh, in which the high court made the following observations:

"It is a settled legal proposition that even if a document is procured by improper or illegal means, there is no bar to its admissibility if it is relevant and its genuineness is proved. If the evidence is admissible, it does not matter how it has been obtained. However, as a matter of caution, the court in exercise of its discretion may disallow certain evidence in a criminal case if the strict rules of admissibility would operate unfairly against the accused. More so, the court must conclude that it is genuine and free from tampering or mutilation."

The court also cited Magraj Patodia v. R.K. Birla & Ors, in which the supreme court ruled that even a document obtained dishonestly or illegally could be admitted as long as its necessity and veracity were established. 

The appeal was upheld, and the Writ Court's order for the Anti-Corruption Bureau to conduct an investigation was reversed.

Case Title: Mohd Yousuf Vs UT of J&K.
Citation: LPA No. 69/2022 LPA No. 76/2022
Link: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=zDLovBVSUw02H8XukOjXfBYOcWAH1osasJFbpk00SOaNaESJVXPR4zYp%2F7vNo7NA&caseno=LPA/69/2022&cCode=1&appFlag=