Jammu, Jul 17: The Principal Sessions Court, Jammu, on Friday rejected the bail application of Kamal Singh, who was allegedly caught red-handed while attempting to murder former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Dr. Farooq Abdullah, citing the gravity of the offence, public safety and democratic stability.
According to the court, the seriousness of the allegations, the potential impact on public order and the possibility of the accused repeating the offence weighed heavily against granting him bail.
Principal Sessions Judge R.N. Watal, in an order passed on July 17, 2026, dismissed the plea filed by the accused in connection with FIR No. 29/2026 registered at Police Station Gangyal, Jammu, under Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act (later noted as Section 30).
Advocate Prince Khanna, who represented Kamal Singh, sought bail on the grounds of innocence, advanced age, and medical ailments, including neurological and psychiatric disorders. The defence argued that the accused had no intention of harming Dr. Farooq Abdullah and had merely attempted to approach him during a wedding function to take a photograph. It was also contended that the investigation was substantially complete and that the accused deserved bail considering his medical condition.
Opposing the application, Public Prosecutor Hemanshu Parkash argued that the allegations involve a grave and politically motivated attempt to murder a prominent public figure. He submitted that granting bail at this stage could undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system, create fear among witnesses, and encourage similar acts. The prosecution further informed the court that the accused had allegedly stated during questioning that he would attempt to kill Dr. Farooq Abdullah again if given another opportunity and expressed no remorse for the incident.
According to the prosecution case, the incident occurred on March 11, 2026, during a wedding function at Royal Park, Greater Kailash, Jammu, where Dr. Farooq Abdullah and Deputy Chief Minister Surinder Choudhary were present. Investigators alleged that Kamal Singh fired from a revolver at Dr. Abdullah with the intention of killing him, although the bullet missed its target. Police recovered the weapon of offence, live cartridges, a fired cartridge case, and other evidence during the investigation. A Special Investigation Team (SIT) later conducted a detailed probe.
The prosecution also placed before the court forensic and documentary material, including handwritten notes allegedly authored by the accused, which investigators claimed reflected longstanding resentment and hatred towards Dr. Farooq Abdullah over issues linked to the migration of Kashmiri Hindus and loss of property during the militancy period. According to the investigation, forensic examination confirmed that the writings belonged to the accused.
In its detailed order, the court observed that offences involving attacks on public figures are not merely crimes against an individual but have far-reaching consequences for public order, democratic stability, and the rule of law. The judge held that individual liberty must be balanced against societal interest, particularly in cases carrying serious allegations with significant public implications.
The court further noted that the prosecution material indicated prima facie evidence of premeditation, recovery of the weapon, alleged motive, and statements suggesting the accused could repeat the offence if released. It observed that these circumstances raised serious concerns regarding public safety and the administration of justice.
Rejecting the defence plea regarding the accused’s mental illness and medical condition, the court said no convincing medical evidence had been produced to establish that the accused was suffering from such a disorder as would justify bail. It further observed that psychiatric treatment and medical care could be provided while the accused remained in judicial custody, and that the question of legal insanity would be determined during trial on the basis of evidence.
Concluding that the nature of the offence, the possibility of repetition, the larger public interest, and the likelihood of the accused fleeing justice or influencing the course of the trial outweighed the grounds raised by the defence, Principal Sessions Judge R.N. Watal dismissed the bail application. The court clarified that the observations made in the order were confined solely to deciding the bail plea and would not prejudice the merits of the trial.
