Jammu Court Rejects Bail Plea Of Accused In Alleged Attempt-To-Murder Case Involving Farooq Abdullah

Jammu, Jul 17: A Jammu court on Friday rejected the bail application of Kamal Singh, the accused in the alleged attempt-to-murder case involving former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Dr. Farooq Abdullah, citing the gravity of the allegations, concerns over public safety, and the possibility of the offence being repeated. Principal Sessions Judge R.N. Watal dismissed the bail plea in connection with FIR No. 29/2026 registered at Police Station Gangyal under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Arms Act. The defence argued that the accused was innocent, elderly, and suffering from neurological and psychiatric ailments. It claimed he had only tried to approach Dr. Abdullah during a wedding function to take a photograph and had no intention of harming him. Opposing the plea, the prosecution described the case as a grave and politically sensitive offence, alleging that the accused attempted to shoot Dr. Abdullah during a wedding function at Royal Park, Greater Kailash, Jammu, on March 11, 2026. Investigators alleged that the accused fired from a revolver with the intention of killing the former Chief Minister, but the shot missed its target. The prosecution also informed the court that the accused had allegedly stated during questioning that he would attempt to kill Dr. Abdullah again if given another opportunity. Police said they recovered the alleged weapon, live cartridges, a fired cartridge case and other evidence, while a Special Investigation Team (SIT) conducted a detailed probe. The court observed that offences involving attacks on public figures have wider implications for public order and democratic stability. It noted that the prosecution had presented 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’s argument regarding the accused’s medical condition, the court said adequate treatment could be provided in judicial custody and that the issue of legal insanity would be decided during the trial. Holding that the seriousness of the allegations, the larger public interest and the likelihood of influencing the course of justice outweighed the grounds for bail, the court dismissed the application while clarifying that its observations were limited to the bail proceedings and would not affect the trial on merits.