'Legal Fetters Become Necessary': High Court Rejects Bail Of Jammu Kashmir Man On Health Grounds In Terror Case
A Division Bench comprising Justice Shahzad Azeem and Justice Sindhu Sharma said the accused had misled the court while seeking the bail.
By ETV Bharat Jammu & Kashmir Team
Published : September 29, 2025 at 4:47 PM IST
Srinagar: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed an appeal of a resident of north Kashmir's Sopore, seeking two months' interim bail on humanitarian grounds. While ruling that the plea was based on a "false ground", the court upheld the NIA Court's decision, emphasizing that individual liberty must be balanced against the larger interests of the State, especially in cases involving terrorism.
The NIA Court on December 9, 2024 had rejected the application of 32-year-old Feroz Ahmad Dar (appellant), who is serving a life sentence and faces additional terror-related charges stemming from a 2019 incident inside Central Jail Srinagar.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Shahzad Azeem and Justice Sindhu Sharma noted: "In a democratic country like ours, governed by the rule of law, the personal liberty of an individual is of utmost importance, however, the legal fetters, at times, become necessary keeping in view the larger interest of the society."
The appellant who is already lodged in the Central Jail, Srinagar, after being convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in a 2013 murder case (FIR No. 48/2013), sought interim bail based on his mother's acute ailment. He claimed his mother was suffering from severe depression and suicidal thoughts, and that he was the only male member available to facilitate her medical examination by a specialist.
On examining the record, the judges pointed out that Dar had misled the Special Court on the claim that he was the only male family member available to attend to his mother. The authorities found that his father, brother and sisters were present at home.
"The accused has a brother who can look after the mother and also further observed that Section 43-D of the UA(P) Act prohibits the granting of bail, unless the Court is satisfied that there is no prima facie case against the accused."
The bench noted in its findings: "In view of the above countervailing factual aspects of the matter, the only unerring conclusion which can be arrived is that the plea of the Appellant before the Special Court that he is required at home for the treatment of his mother has been falsified on inquiry being made by the Special Court."
The appellant is currently facing serious charges under a subsequent FIR (No. 19/2019) registered while he was in jail. The accusations involve a well-planned conspiracy among jail inmates, including Dar, who allegedly raised anti-national slogans, damaged government property, used jail LPG gas cylinders for explosions and arson, and attempted to damage the jail wall to escape. The prosecution alleged that the inmates "formed a terrorist gang inside the Central Jail, Srinagar, with the main objective of engaging in unlawful and terrorist related activities". The charges include Sections 13, 16, and 18 of the UAPA.
Dismissing the appeal, the High Court stressed the need to consider the broader parameters in liberty matters. The bench held: "Therefore, while dealing with liberty matters, the Court has to take into consideration broader parameters, so as to balance the individual liberty vis-a-vis security, sovereignty and interest of the State."
The Court also cited the rigors of the statutory bar under Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA, which mandates denying bail if the Court is satisfied that the accusation against the accused is prima facie true. The Court concluded that there was "sufficient material to sustain the charges."
Furthermore, while addressing the contention regarding the delay in the trial, the High Court relied on a recent ruling from the apex court, stating: "...Supreme Court in 'Gurvinder Singh vs State of Punjab, (2024) 5 SCC 403', authoritatively held that mere delay in trial pertaining to grave offences, as the one involved in the instant case, cannot be used as a ground to grant bail."
The bench noted that the appellant had preferred "no compelling justification for exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction for granting bail, especially when material shows that the Appellant is already undergoing life imprisonment and during the lodgment in the jail committed the offences for which he is seeking bail."
Holding the appeal to be “bereft of merit”, the Division Bench dismissed it in full. It also clarified that the dismissal would not influence the trial:"We… make it clear that the observations made are limited to the adjudication of the present appeal and shall not prejudice the merits of the case during trial."
Read More:
