SRINAGAR: The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by senior Advocate and former Bar Association President Srinagar, Mian Abdul Qayoom, challenging the rejection of his medical bail in the high-profile murder case of Advocate Babar Qadri. The Court held that his release would prejudice the right to a free and fair trial and noted that circumstances had arisen where “no Advocate at Srinagar was willing to plead the case of the complainant party.”
The Division Bench of Justice Shahzad Azeem and Justice Sindhu Sharma upheld the order of the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, passed in September this year, designated under the NIA Act, which had refused bail to the 77-year-old accused on medical grounds.
The case relates to FIR No. 62/2020 registered at Police Station Lal Bazar under the IPC, Arms Act and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act after Advocate Babar Qadri was shot by unidentified assailants in Srinagar on September 24, 2020, and later succumbed to his injuries. A charge-sheet was filed in May 2021 against several accused in the case. However, Mian Abdul Qayoom was not named as an accused at that stage.
The High Court noted that the trajectory of the case changed after the father of the deceased sought further investigation in July 2023. Acting on this request, the investigation, as per the judgment, was transferred from the local police to the State Investigation Agency, and a Special Investigation Team was constituted. It was during this phase of further investigation that the alleged complicity of the accused advocate surfaced, leading to his arrest on June 25, 2024.
A supplementary charge-sheet was subsequently filed against him in December 2024, and charges were framed in August 2025 under Sections 16(1)(a), 18 and 38 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
One of the most consequential observations in the judgement relates to the transfer of the trial from Srinagar to Jammu. The Bench, recorded that the High Court had ordered the shift after concluding that a free and fair trial was not possible in Srinagar due to a surcharged atmosphere arising from the alleged influence of the appellant, Mian Abdul Qayoom, who is himself an advocate and a former Bar leader.
The Court specifically noted allegations of threats and harassment faced by the family of the deceased advocate and recorded that the situation had reached a point where “no Advocate at Srinagar was willing to plead the case of the complainant party.” The Bench observed that this was a material circumstance indicating serious impediments to the administration of justice in the Valley at that stage.
Before the trial court and the High Court, Advocate Mian Abdul Qayoom sought bail exclusively on medical and humanitarian grounds, citing multiple ailments, including coronary artery disease, cardiac arrhythmia requiring implantation of a permanent pacemaker in November 2024, urological disorders, glaucoma, diabetes and hypertension. His counsel argued that his deteriorating health could not be adequately managed in a jail environment and invoked Article 21 of the Constitution.
The High Court, however, undertook a detailed examination of the medical records and noted that the appellant had been examined and treated on at least 36 occasions during custody at government medical institutions, including the Super Specialty Hospital and Government Medical College, Jammu. The Bench also recorded that the pacemaker implantation had been successfully carried out during incarceration and that the latest medical report dated October 20, 2025 described his condition as stable.
“It is not every sickness or infirmity that entitles the accused to be enlarged on bail,” the Court held, stating that bail on medical grounds is warranted only in exceptional cases where treatment cannot be adequately provided in custody. The Court found that this threshold had not been met in the present case.
The Bench referred to the statutory embargo under Section 43-D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, observing that humanitarian considerations and prolonged incarceration cannot override the bar unless the Court is satisfied that the accusations are not prima facie true. On examining the record, the Court held that no such satisfaction could be recorded in the present case.
The Court linked the bail question with the broader issue of trial integrity. It observed that the same factors that necessitated the transfer of investigation to the State Investigation Agency and the trial to Jammu, including alleged influence, threats to witnesses and difficulty in securing legal representation, continued to exist. With most prosecution witnesses yet to depose, the Bench held that releasing the appellant at this stage would seriously prejudice the constitutional guarantee of a free and fair trial.
While dismissing the appeal, the Bench added that no illegality had been committed by the trial court in rejecting bail and that no exceptional circumstances existed to warrant interference. (KDC).
