J&K&L High Court Grants Bail To Former MLA, Councillor In Ladakh Protest FIR After Seven Months' Custody
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has granted bail to a former MLA and an LAHDC councillor accused in connection with the Ladakh protest incident, holding that continued incarceration was not warranted in the facts of the case.The Court was hearing successive bail applications filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking bail in FIR No....
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has granted bail to a former MLA and an LAHDC councillor accused in connection with the Ladakh protest incident, holding that continued incarceration was not warranted in the facts of the case.
The Court was hearing successive bail applications filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking bail in FIR No. 144/2025 registered at Police Station Leh in relation to violent protests that allegedly resulted in damage to public property and injuries to security personnel.
A Bench of Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani, while allowing the bail application, observed that “in case of non-bailable offences which do not carry a sentence of death or imprisonment for life in alternative, bail is a rule and its denial an exception.”
The petitioners, including a former Member of Legislative Assembly and a councillor, sought bail in a case arising out of protests held in Leh in September last year. The prosecution alleged that the protest escalated into violence involving stone pelting, arson, and damage to public and private property, resulting in injuries to police and CRPF personnel and loss of lives.
The petitioners denied the allegations, contending that they had been falsely implicated on account of political rivalry and that no act of incitement or participation in violence could be attributed to them. It was also contended that one of the petitioners was not present at the place of occurrence and that the protest had initially been peaceful.
The respondents opposed bail, alleging that the petitioners had played a pivotal role in instigating the mob and that their release would adversely affect the investigation and public order.
The Court noted that the petitioners had been in custody for about seven months and that a preliminary charge-sheet had already been prepared, noting “the petitioners/accused have been reportedly in custody… since about seven months… [and] a preliminary charge sheet is going to be produced… which is complete in all respects.”
The Court observed that the offences alleged against the petitioners did not attract the statutory bar against the grant of bail, observing that “the petitioners/accused have not been so far shown involvement in any offence carrying the punishment of death or imprisonment for life in alternative.”
Reiterating settled principles, the Court emphasised that “bail is a rule and its denial an exception especially in cases where… custodial questioning… is not imperative… and… there is nothing on record to show that the accused… will misuse the concession.”
The Court elaborated on the principles governing the grant of bail, noting that the decision must balance individual liberty with societal interest. It observed that “two paramount considerations viz. likelihood of accused fleeing from justice and tampering with the prosecution evidence relate to the ensuring of a fair trial.”
It further held that “the grant of bail or the denial of the same falls within the purview of the judicial discretion meant to be exercised on sound legal principles.”
The Court further explained the object of bail, stating that “the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused… The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive,” and emphasised that “punishment begins after conviction… every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.”
The Court also stressed that discretion in granting or denying bail must be exercised carefully, observing that “the grant or denial of bail… must be exercised in a judicious manner and in a humane way.”
It clarified that “heinousness of crime by itself cannot be the ground to out rightly deny the benefit of bail if there are other overwhelming circumstances,” and held that concerns of the prosecution can be addressed by appropriate safeguards, noting that “the apprehensions of the respondents can be taken care of by imposing reasonable terms and conditions.”
The High Court concluded that in view of the period of custody, completion of investigation, absence of statutory bar, and settled principles governing the grant of bail, the petitioners were entitled to be released on bail.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the applications and granted bail to the petitioners subject to conditions, including cooperation with the investigation, non-interference with witnesses, and restriction on travel.
Case Title: Smanla Dorje Nurboo v. Union Territory of Ladakh a/w Deldan Namgail v. Union Territory of Ladakh
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)