HC upholds rejection of bail to Mian Qayoom in Babar Qadri Murder Case, Says medical grounds not exceptional

17/12/2025

JAMMU, Dec 16: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a criminal appeal filed by Mian Abdul Qayoom, upholding the order of the Designated NIA Court, Jammu, which had rejected his plea for bail on medical grounds in connection with the murder of advocate Babar Qadri. The Court held that no exceptional or life-threatening medical circumstance was made out to warrant bail, particularly in view of the statutory embargo under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the serious nature of allegations against the appellant.
The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem, dismissing Crl A(D) No. 50/2025, which challenged the order dated September 27, 2025 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, Designated Court under the NIA Act.
The case arises out of FIR No. 62/2020, registered at Police Station Lal Bazar on September 24, 2020, following the shooting of advocate Babar Qadri by terrorists. Qadri later succumbed to his injuries, leading to addition of offences under Section 302 IPC, provisions of the Arms Act, and Sections 16, 18, 20 and 39 of the UAPA.
Initially, several accused were charge-sheeted, while the appellant was not named. However, following further investigation-ordered on an application by the father of the deceased-the probe was transferred from the J&K Police to the State Investigation Agency (SIA) in July 2023. The appellant was subsequently arrested on June 25, 2024, and a supplementary charge-sheet was filed against him in December 2024. Charges under Sections 16(1)(a), 18 and 38 of UAPA were framed against him on August 18, 2025.
Owing to allegations of influence, threats to witnesses, and a surcharged atmosphere, the High Court had earlier transferred the trial from Srinagar to Jammu to ensure a free and fair trial.
Before the High Court, the appellant, aged about 77 years, sought bail exclusively on medical and humanitarian grounds. He claimed to be suffering from multiple serious ailments, including Coronary Artery Disease, cardiac arrhythmia, diabetes, hypertension, urological disorders, glaucoma, and neurological complications. It was contended that he had undergone implantation of a permanent pacemaker in November 2024 and required constant monitoring, which, according to him, could not be adequately managed in jail.
Senior counsel appearing for the appellant argued that prolonged incarceration would pose a grave risk to his life and invoked Article 21 of the Constitution, seeking bail on compassionate considerations.
Opposing the appeal, the Union Territory submitted that the appellant had been provided regular and specialized medical treatment, including surgery and follow-up care at GMC and Super Specialty Hospital, Jammu. The prosecution emphasized that the appellant is alleged to have conspired with terrorists and their handlers across the border to eliminate the deceased advocate and that his release would seriously prejudice the trial.
The State further pointed out that the appellant is an influential person and a senior advocate, and his presence outside custody could intimidate witnesses, many of whom are yet to depose.
After examining the medical records and rival submissions, the High Court observed that while the appellant has multiple health issues, his latest medical status report dated October 20, 2025 showed his condition to be stable. The Bench noted that the appellant himself admitted that he underwent pacemaker implantation successfully during custody and continues to receive treatment across various medical specialties.
The Court reiterated that bail on medical grounds is an exception, permissible only where the ailment is so serious that it cannot be adequately treated in custody and where jail or government hospitals lack requisite facilities. Merely frequent hospital visits, the Court held, do not justify bail.
Importantly, the Bench underscored the statutory bar under Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA, observing that humanitarian considerations or palliative care cannot override the embargo unless the Court is satisfied that the accusations are not prima facie true or exceptional circumstances exist.
The Court also took note of earlier developments, including the transfer of investigation to SIA and shifting of trial from Srinagar to Jammu, on account of alleged threats, influence, and difficulty in ensuring a fair trial. It held that enlarging the appellant on bail at this stage would prejudice the constitutional right to a free and fair trial, particularly when most prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined.
The Bench distinguished several judgments cited by the appellant, including Manish Sisodia, Shoma Kanti Sen, Jalaluddin Khan, and Varavara Rao, holding that those cases turned on different factual foundations and did not apply to the present matter.
Concluding that no illegality was committed by the trial court and no exceptional medical ground was made out, the High Court dismissed the appeal. The rejection of bail was upheld, with the Court observing that societal interest and the gravity of terrorist-related offences must be balanced against individual liberty.
Accordingly, Crl A(D) No. 50/2025 was dismissed, and the appellant was directed to continue facing trial in accordance with law.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty