Mere Multiplicity of Ailments Is Not Ground for Bail Under UAPA: J&K High Court Dismisses Medical Bail Plea of Mian Abdul Qayoom

"Bail on medical grounds is permissible only in exceptional cases where the ailment cannot be adequately treated in custody" – High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, comprising Justice Shahzad Azeem and Justice Sindhu Sharma, delivered a significant ruling in Mian Abdul Qayoom v. Union Territory of J&K and Others, rejecting the appeal against denial of bail on medical and humanitarian grounds in a high-profile case involving allegations of terrorist conspiracy and murder under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA).

The Court upheld the trial court’s order dated September 27, 2025, refusing bail to the 77-year-old appellant, a senior advocate and former Bar leader, observing that “mere multiplicity of ailments or frequent hospital visits is not sufficient to override the statutory embargo under Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA.” It ruled that no exceptional circumstance had been established to justify release on medical grounds, and further held that palliative care was not an independent ground for bail.

Allegations of Terror Conspiracy and Influence Prompt Transfer of Trial to Jammu

The case originates from the brutal assassination of Advocate Babar Qadri in Srinagar on September 24, 2020, allegedly at the behest of terrorist elements. Initially registered under Sections 307 IPC, 7/27 of the Arms Act, and Sections 16 and 18 of the UAPA, the charges were enhanced to include Section 302 IPC after Qadri succumbed to his injuries. Eventually, a supplementary charge-sheet was filed against Mian Abdul Qayoom, alleging his active complicity in orchestrating the murder in conspiracy with a terrorist organisation.

Due to apprehensions of his influence within the legal fraternity and threats faced by witnesses and the complainant’s family, the High Court had transferred the trial from Srinagar to Jammu, stating that “no advocate was willing to appear for the complainant’s side in Srinagar due to the dominant position of the accused.”

As per the prosecution, the appellant had allegedly conspired with militants and their cross-border handlers to eliminate Qadri, who was emerging as a popular and vocal young lawyer. The State Investigation Agency (SIA) took over the probe in 2023 following a request from the deceased’s father, and the appellant was arrested on June 25, 2024, after his alleged complicity surfaced.

Bail on Medical Grounds Under UAPA: High Threshold Reiterated

In the appeal, the appellant contended that advanced age and critical health ailments — including cardiac arrhythmia, pacemaker dependency, urological and neurological disorders, glaucoma, hypertension and diabetes — warranted his release on medical and humanitarian grounds. It was argued that he required palliative care, and jail conditions could not support his health needs.

However, the Court categorically rejected this submission, holding 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 that the appellant had not discharged this burden. The Court cited the stable medical condition of the appellant, confirmed by the latest report dated October 20, 2025, which showed that the pacemaker implantation had been successful and follow-up care was ongoing.

“It is not every sickness or infirmity that entitles the accused to be enlarged on bail,” the Court held, emphasizing that the State had ensured specialized treatment through Super Speciality Hospital (GMC Jammu) and multiple departmental follow-ups. The record showed 36 hospital visits and no indication that authorities had failed to provide adequate care.

The Court further rejected the contention that palliative care constituted a separate basis for bail, stating:

“Palliative care is not a separate or independent ground that may override the medical ground… once bail on medical grounds does not find favour with the Court, same holds equally good on the ground of palliative care.”

Societal Interest and Free Trial Cannot Be Compromised for Individual Liberty in Terror Cases

In weighing the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution against the interest of society and the integrity of a fair trial, the Court observed:

“While exercising discretion for grant of bail, the Court has to harmonize the conflicting rights of individual freedom and societal interest.”

Citing the transfer of trial due to witness intimidation and the appellant’s influence, the Bench held that granting bail would prejudice the right to a free and fair trial. It emphasized that most prosecution witnesses were yet to testify, and the presence of the appellant could “necessarily hamper the trial”, particularly in view of his past role as a Bar leader and the alleged threats to the deceased’s family, who were even forced to sell their home.

Cited Precedents Held Inapplicable

The Court also analyzed and distinguished multiple precedents relied upon by the appellant’s counsel — including Manish Sisodia, Shoma Kanti Sen, Jalaluddin Khan, Varavara Rao, Asif Latief Naik, and Vijay Agrawal — holding that they were factually distinguishable.

For instance, in Varavara Rao, bail was granted due to lack of trained medical staff and monitoring facilities inside prison, unlike in the present case. In Asif Latief Naik, the appellant required an urgent third surgical intervention, which was not feasible in custody. The Court concluded:

“From the above analysis, it is conspicuous that the judgments relied upon… are clearly distinguishable and have no application to the facts and circumstances of the instant case.”

No Illegality in Rejection of Bail by Trial Court

In its concluding paragraph, the Division Bench firmly rejected the plea, observing:

“The record shows that the appellant has all along been provided with advanced and specialized treatment whenever necessitated. Therefore… the enlargement of the appellant on bail at this stage would prejudice the constitutional right to a free and fair trial.”

No perversity or illegality was found in the trial court’s rejection of bail, and thus, the appeal was dismissed.

Date of Decision: December 16, 2025