JAMMU, JULY 17: The Principal Sessions Court Jammu on Friday rejected the bail application of Kamal Singh, accused in the alleged attempt-to-murder case involving former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Dr. Farooq Abdullah, holding that the gravity of the allegations, concerns over public safety and the possibility of repetition of the offence did not justify his release at this stage.
Principal Sessions Judge R.N. Watal passed the order on July 17, 2026, while dismissing the bail plea filed in connection with FIR No. 29/2026 registered at Police Station Gangyal, Jammu. The case has been registered under Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and relevant provisions of the Arms Act.
The accused, represented by Advocate Prince Khanna, sought bail on the grounds that he was innocent, elderly and suffering from neurological and psychiatric ailments. The defence maintained that Kamal Singh had no intention of harming Dr. Abdullah and had merely attempted to approach him during a wedding ceremony to take a photograph.
It was further argued that the investigation had substantially progressed, the necessary recoveries had already been made and the continued detention of the accused was not required. The defence urged the court to take a compassionate view of his age and health condition.
Opposing the bail plea, Public Prosecutor Hemanshu Parkash submitted that the allegations were extremely serious and related to an alleged armed attack on a prominent political leader at a public gathering. He argued that releasing the accused could affect public confidence, cause apprehension among witnesses and create the possibility of interference with the proceedings.
The prosecution also informed the court that the accused had allegedly made statements during questioning indicating that he might repeat the act if given another opportunity. It was submitted that such alleged conduct, coupled with the absence of remorse, raised serious concerns over public safety.
According to the prosecution case, the incident took place on March 11, 2026, during a wedding function at Royal Park in the Greater Kailash area of Jammu. Dr. Farooq Abdullah and Deputy Chief Minister Surinder Choudhary were among those present at the venue.
Investigators alleged that Kamal Singh fired a revolver in the direction of Dr. Abdullah with the intention of causing his death. The bullet, however, missed the alleged target. Police subsequently recovered the weapon, live cartridges, a fired cartridge case and other material stated to be connected with the incident.
A Special Investigation Team was constituted to conduct a detailed probe into the case. The prosecution placed before the court forensic material, witness accounts, recovery records and documentary evidence gathered during the investigation.
The court was also informed about handwritten notes allegedly authored by the accused. Investigators claimed that the writings reflected resentment towards Dr. Abdullah over issues associated with the migration of Kashmiri Hindus and the loss of property during the period of militancy. The prosecution submitted that forensic examination had linked the writings to the accused.
In its order, the court observed that an alleged attack on a public figure could not be viewed merely as an offence against an individual. Such incidents, it noted, may have wider consequences for public order, democratic institutions and confidence in the rule of law.
The court said that while personal liberty is an important constitutional consideration, it must be balanced against the seriousness of the accusations, the safety of society and the need to ensure a fair and unhindered trial.
The judge noted that the material placed by the prosecution prima facie pointed towards an alleged motive, premeditation, recovery of the firearm and circumstances that could not be ignored at the bail stage. The alleged statements attributed to the accused regarding repetition of the offence were also taken into consideration.
Rejecting the plea based on mental and physical health, the court observed that no sufficiently convincing medical record had been produced to show that the accused was suffering from a condition warranting release on bail.
The court further stated that necessary medical and psychiatric care could be provided to the accused while he remained in judicial custody. It added that any defence relating to mental incapacity or legal insanity would have to be examined during the trial on the basis of admissible evidence.
The Principal Sessions Judge concluded that the gravity of the alleged offence, concerns over possible repetition, wider public interest and the apprehension of interference with the course of justice outweighed the grounds advanced by the defence.
The bail application was accordingly dismissed. The court, however, clarified that all observations contained in the order were limited to the consideration of the bail plea and would not influence the trial or determine the guilt or innocence of the accused.