J&K And Ladakh High Court Dismisses Former Bar President Mian Abdul Qayoom’s Medical Bail Plea After Finding Specialised Treatment In Custody
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Division Bench of Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem dismissed an appeal by former Bar Association President Mian Abdul Qayoom seeking bail on medical and humanitarian grounds, and declined to interfere with the trial court’s refusal to release him. The Bench noted that the record shows he has been provided advanced and specialised treatment whenever required and that his health status was described as stable, with no material indicating a life-threatening medical emergency that could not be managed in custody. The case relates to allegations of terrorist-linked activity connected to the fatal shooting of a lawyer, and the Court also referred to concerns about threats to witnesses and the fairness of trial if bail were granted at this stage.
The case arises from an appeal filed by former Bar Association President Mian Abdul Qayoom challenging the rejection of his application seeking bail on medical grounds. The prosecution case originates from a shooting incident in September 2020 in which a practising advocate was attacked by unknown assailants and later succumbed to his injuries. An FIR was initially registered for offences under the Indian Penal Code, the Arms Act, and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed against several accused persons, excluding the present appellant.
Subsequently, upon an application seeking further investigation, the probe was transferred to the State Investigation Agency, during which the alleged involvement of the appellant surfaced, leading to his arrest in June 2024. A supplementary charge sheet was thereafter filed and charges were framed against him under provisions of the UA(P) Act. Mian Abdul Qayoom sought bail primarily on medical and humanitarian grounds, citing advanced age and multiple ailments, including cardiac, urological, ophthalmic, neurological, and metabolic conditions. The prosecution opposed the plea, contending that adequate medical treatment was being provided during custody and stating the seriousness of the allegations, including alleged links with terrorist activities and concerns of witness intimidation.
The Court examined the appellant’s claim for bail strictly on medical grounds and assessed whether his health condition warranted release from custody. It observed that “bail on medical grounds is to be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the medical condition is so serious that it cannot be adequately treated in custody and the requisite facilities are unavailable in jail.”
After perusing medical records, the Bench noted that the appellant had undergone surgery for pacemaker implantation during custody and was under regular follow-up with multiple specialised departments. It recorded that “the medical report further abundantly makes it clear that the health condition of the appellant is also stable.”
The Court rejected the argument that frequent hospital visits by themselves justified bail, stating that “it is not every sickness or infirmity that entitles the accused to be enlarged on bail, unless jail authorities state that medical facilities in the jail are not enough for the undertrial.” It further observed that the appellant had failed to place any material showing inability of jail authorities to manage his treatment.
Addressing the statutory bar under the UA(P) Act, the Court stated that “prolonged incarceration and other humanitarian grounds, however, are insufficient to override the statutory bar, in the absence of satisfaction of the conditions prescribed under Section 43-D(5).”
The Bench also took note of the transfer of investigation and trial, recording that “the presence of the appellant… would necessarily hamper the free and fair trial of the case, as majority of the prosecution witnesses have yet to enter the witness box.”
On palliative care, the Court clarified that “palliative care is not a separate or independent ground that may override the medical ground, rather it is a subset of medical ground.” It concluded that no urgent or life-threatening condition was shown to exist.
The Court held that “no illegality is found to have been committed by the trial Court while passing the impugned order. No ground is made out for enlargement of the appellant on bail. The appeal being devoid of merit, is dismissed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: M/s S. Muralidhar and Z.A. Qureshi, Senior Advocates, with Mr. Amandeep Singh, Mr. Mian Rauf Ahmed and Mr. Babar Bilal Malik, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mrs. Monika Kohli, Senior Additional Advocate General, with Ms. Sagira Jaffar, Assisting Counsel
Case Title: Mian Abdul Qayoom v. Union Territory of J&K and Others
Case Number: Crl A(D) No. 50/2025
Bench: Justice Shahzad Azeem, Justice Sindhu Sharma
