news details |
|
|
| HC rejects bail plea of ex-bar leader Qayoom, says no medical emergency warrants release | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Dec 16: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh on Tuesday dismissed the medical bail plea of senior lawyer and former Bar leader Mian Abdul Qayoom, who is accused in the high-profile murder case of Advocate Babar Qadri. The Division Bench comprising Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem upheld the trial court's order rejecting his bail, ruling that no exceptional medical condition had been demonstrated to justify release.
The 77-year-old appellant had sought bail on humanitarian and medical grounds, citing multiple ailments including coronary artery disease, cardiac arrhythmia requiring a permanent pacemaker, serious urological issues, glaucoma, and neurological and orthopaedic complications. His counsel argued that he required around 20 daily medications and constant monitoring, which they claimed was not feasible inside jail.
The Court, however, noted that Qayoom had undergone a successful pacemaker implantation at Government Medical College Jammu during his custody, and that medical reports-including the latest dated October 20, 2025-showed he was in a "stable" condition and receiving regular, specialised treatment from departments including cardiology, urology, endocrinology, radiology, and ophthalmology. The Bench observed that he had been taken for medical checkups 36 times, demonstrating that authorities had not neglected his healthcare needs.
Rejecting the argument that frequent hospital visits indicate worsening health, the Court held that "not every sickness or infirmity entitles an accused to bail," particularly under stringent statutes like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), which bars bail unless strict conditions are satisfied.
The Bench also underscored the gravity of allegations: Qayoom is accused of conspiring with terrorists across the border to eliminate Qadri, and his "dominant influence" was cited as a reason the case was shifted first to the State Investigation Agency and later transferred from Srinagar to Jammu to ensure free and fair trial. The Court noted allegations that witnesses had faced threats and no lawyer in Srinagar was willing to represent the complainant.
Observing that release at this stage could prejudice the ongoing trial-most witnesses are yet to depose-the Bench concluded that no medical emergency or inadequate treatment had been shown to override the statutory bar on bail under UAPA. "The appellant has been provided with advanced and specialised treatment whenever necessitated," the Court said.
Finding no infirmity in the trial court's order, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal, declaring it devoid of merit
(JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
