Jammu, July 17 (JKNS): A court in Jammu has rejected the bail application of Kamal Singh, the man accused of attempting to murder National Conference President and former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Dr. Farooq Abdullah, observing that the seriousness of the allegations, the potential threat to public safety and democratic stability, and the possibility of the accused repeating the offence outweighed the grounds for granting bail.
According to the court order, a copy of which lies with news agency JKNS, Principal Sessions Judge Jammu, R.N. Watal, dismissed the bail application filed by the accused in connection with FIR No. 29/2026 registered at Police Station Gangyal under Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and relevant provisions of the Arms Act.
The defence, represented by Advocate Prince Khanna, sought bail on the grounds that the accused was innocent, elderly and suffering from neurological and psychiatric ailments. It was argued that he had only attempted to approach Dr. Farooq Abdullah during a wedding function to take a photograph and had no intention to cause harm.
Opposing the plea, Public Prosecutor Hemanshu Parkash submitted that the case involved a grave and politically motivated attempt on the life of a senior political leader. He argued that granting bail at this stage could undermine public confidence in the justice system, influence witnesses and encourage similar acts.
The prosecution further informed the court that during questioning, the accused had allegedly stated he would again attempt to kill Dr. Farooq Abdullah if given another opportunity and had shown no remorse over the incident.
According to the prosecution, 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 a revolver at Dr. Abdullah with the intention of killing him, though the bullet missed the target.
Police recovered the alleged weapon of offence, live cartridges, a fired cartridge case and other incriminating material during the investigation. A Special Investigation Team (SIT) later conducted a detailed probe into the case.
The prosecution also relied on forensic and documentary evidence, including handwritten notes allegedly authored by the accused, which investigators claimed reflected longstanding resentment towards Dr. Abdullah over issues related to the migration of Kashmiri Hindus and loss of property during the militancy period. The forensic examination, according to investigators, confirmed that the writings belonged to the accused.
While rejecting the bail plea, the court observed that offences involving attacks on prominent public figures are not merely crimes against individuals but have wider implications for public order, democratic institutions and the rule of law.
The court further noted that the prosecution had placed prima facie material indicating premeditation, recovery of the weapon, an alleged motive and statements suggesting the accused could repeat the offence if released.
Rejecting the defence plea regarding the accused’s medical condition, the court held that no convincing medical evidence had been produced to establish that he suffered from any mental disorder warranting bail. It observed that necessary psychiatric treatment and medical care could be provided while the accused remained in judicial custody and that the issue of legal insanity would be determined during trial based on evidence.
Holding that the gravity of the offence, larger publi…
