Jammu Kashmir High Court Grants Bail to Leh Councillor, Ex-MLA Amid Clash Over “Provocation vs Political Vendetta” Claims | Kashmir Life

SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh has granted bail to a sitting councillor and a former MLA from Ladakh in a high-profile case linked to the September 2025 violence in Leh, where competing narratives of alleged incitement and political vendetta came under judicial scrutiny.

The order was passed by Justice Mohammad Yousuf Wani in Bail Applications No. 316/2025 and 320/2025. The matter had been reserved on December 24, 2025, and pronounced on April 16, 2026.

The petitioners, Smanla Dorje Nurboo, a councillor from Saspol constituency in Leh, and Deldan Namgail, a former MLA from Nubra, had approached the court seeking bail in connection with FIR No. 144/2025 registered at Police Station Leh. Both had been in custody since late September 2025 and were lodged in the District Jail Leh. They were represented by Advocates A.P. Singh, Deachan Angmo and Nikhil Verma. In contrast, the Union Territory of Ladakh was represented by Deputy Solicitor General Vishal Sharma, assisted by CGSC Eishaan Dadhichi and SIT In-Charge Rishabh Shukla, IPS.

The case traces its origins to a protest movement in Leh that had been building over several days. According to the prosecution, a hunger strike underway at NDS Park near the General Post Office became the focal point of mobilisation, particularly after calls circulated on September 23, 2025, urging people to assemble the following day. What began as a gathering, the prosecution alleged, escalated into large-scale violence on September 24, with mobs attacking police and CRPF personnel, torching vehicles and government buildings, and targeting the BJP office and the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council complex. The unrest left dozens of security personnel injured and resulted in the deaths of four individuals, besides extensive damage to public and private property.

Central to the prosecution’s case was the allegation that Nurboo’s press conference on September 23 acted as a catalyst. Investigators claimed that his remarks, widely shared on social media, provoked youth participation and contributed to the outbreak of violence. Statements recorded during the investigation, the prosecution said, indicated that several individuals joined the protest after viewing his address. Nurboo was also alleged to have remained at large for three days before surrendering on September 27, 2025.

In Namgail’s case, the prosecution relied heavily on electronic evidence, asserting that CCTV footage and video recordings showed him actively participating in the protest and inciting the crowd. He was accused of leading sections of the mob, engaging in stone pelting at sensitive locations and even damaging a CCTV camera near the BJP office in an attempt to destroy evidence. The prosecution argued that both accused, given their political standing and influence, posed a serious risk of interfering with witnesses and obstructing the course of justice if released on bail.

The defence, however, strongly contested these claims, presenting the case as one of political targeting. Nurboo’s counsel argued that his September 23 press conference was a good-faith intervention aimed at drawing administrative attention to the deteriorating health of hunger strikers, many of whom belonged to his constituency. It was submitted that there was nothing in his statement that could be construed as incitement to violence and that he was, in fact, present at a hospital on September 24, attending to the protesters, not at the site of the clashes. The defence maintained that there was no proximate link between his remarks and the subsequent violence.

Namgail’s counsel similarly denied the allegations, describing them as baseless and motivated by political rivalry. It was argued that he had been arrested on September 26, 2025, while on his way to surrender before the court, and that the claims regarding his presence in CCTV footage were false. Both petitioners emphasised that the protest had initially been peaceful and that the violence that followed was the result of mismanagement rather than any deliberate instigation.

The defence further pointed out that the investigation had progressed substantially, with a charge sheet already filed against multiple accused, including the petitioners, and that three co-accused had been granted bail earlier by the Sessions Court on similar allegations. It was argued that continued detention of the petitioners, who had no criminal antecedents and were not charged with offences punishable by death or life imprisonment, amounted to an unjustified curtailment of their personal liberty.

After considering the rival submissions, the High Court observed that the petitioners had remained in custody for about seven months and that the offences alleged against them did not attract the statutory bar on bail. The court reiterated settled legal principles that bail is the rule and its denial an exception, particularly where the investigation has progressed, and there is no compelling material to suggest that the accused would abscond or tamper with evidence.

While acknowledging the seriousness of the allegations and the scale of the violence, the court held that these concerns could be addressed by imposing stringent conditions. Accordingly, both petitioners were granted bail subject to furnishing personal bonds and sureties of Rs 1,00,000 each and complying with conditions, including cooperation with the investigation, regular appearance before the trial court, and a prohibition on influencing witnesses or leaving the country without permission.

The court clarified that its observations were confined to the question of bail and would not affect the merits of the case, which will be determined during trial.