Anantnag: The Jammu & Kashmir police have registered a case against National Conference legislator Altaf Ahmad Wani, commonly referred to as Altaf Kaloo, and party spokesperson Umesh Bhat. The First Information Report (FIR) originates from a grievance lodged by the MLA’s Personal Security Officer (PSO).
The complaint was filed at Sadar Anantnag Police Station under Sections 121 and 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Investigators are now examining the evidence surrounding the allegation.
Altercation Allegedly Occurred During a Security Duty
According to the PSO’s statement, a verbal dispute broke out while he was on guard duty for the legislator. The confrontation supposedly escalated, leading the officer to accuse Kaloo and Bhat of physically assaulting him.
The officer further alleged that he sustained injuries, prompting him to lodge the FIR.
The matter remains under investigation; no court has yet adjudicated the claims.
MLA Rejects the Allegations
Altaf Kaloo has categorically denied the accusations, labeling them baseless. He maintains that he raised concerns with security officials after noticing the PSO’s repeated absence from his post.
Kaloo says he informed the Senior Superintendent of Police (Security) and asked for verification. He contends that the officer responded by pushing him during the ensuing exchange.
The legislator has appealed to senior police leadership, including the IGP of Kashmir and the SSP of Anantnag, to conduct a neutral inquiry.
Police Assess Both Versions
The FIR presents two conflicting narratives. The PSO claims he was assaulted while performing his duties; Kaloo offers a contrary account of the incident.
Kaloo hinted at filing a counter‑complaint against the officer and urged investigators to scrutinise all statements and evidence before proceeding further.
Authorities have opened a formal probe to ascertain the exact circumstances of the reported clash and to establish the factual matrix of the case.
It is essential to note that an FIR merely records a complaint; it does not constitute guilt. Any subsequent legal action will depend on the outcome of the ongoing investigation.
