Leh Violence: Jammu & Kashmir High Court grants bail to ex-councillor, former MLA

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has granted bail to sitting councillor Smanla Dorje Nurboo and former MLA Deldan Namgail in connection with the Leh violence of September 2025 [Smanla Dorje Nurboo & Ors. V/s UT of Ladakh]..In an order pronounced on April 16, Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani said that “bail is a rule and its denial an exception” in cases not involving offences punishable with death or life imprisonment.The Court emphasised that the object of bail is to secure the presence of the accused during trial and not to punish them before conviction.."Admittedly, 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 especially in cases where firstly the custodial questioning of an accused is not imperative for the logical and scientific conclusion of the investigation and secondly where there is nothing on record to show that the accused, if admitted to bail, will misuse the concession by tampering with the prosecution evidence, by non-cooperation and association with the investigating agency and also by absconding at the trial," the Court said..The Leh violence was triggered by demands of statehood for Ladakh. The present case pertained to incidents from September 24, 2025 when a protest in Leh turned violent, resulting in large-scale rioting, arson and attacks on police and CRPF personnel. As per the prosecution, the violence led to the death of four persons, injuries to 38 police personnel and 57 CRPF personnel, and extensive damage to public and private property, including government buildings, vehicles and office of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Nurboo and Namgail were arrested subsequently for their alleged role in the riots. .The prosecution alleged that Nurboo played a pivotal role in instigating the violence through a press conference held on September 23, 2025, which was widely circulated on social media.Nurboo’s press conference and subsequent social media circulation of videos provoked youth and acted as a catalyst for the violent incident, it was argued..It was further alleged that Namgail actively participated in the violence, with CCTV footage purportedly showing him leading the mob, pelting stones, and even damaging a CCTV camera to destroy evidence. The State argued that both accused, owing to their political influence, could tamper with evidence and impact the ongoing investigation if released on bail..On the other hand, counsel for the petitioners contended that the accused were falsely implicated due to political rivalry. It was argued that Nurboo’s press conference was made in good faith, highlighting the deteriorating health of those on hunger strike from his constituency, and it contained no incitement to violence..The defence also claimed that he was present in the hospital on the day of the incident and not at the scene. Regarding Namgail, it was argued that he is a respected former legislator with no history of violence and that the allegations based on CCTV footage were false..The counsel for the petitioners further submitted that they had been in custody for about seven months, the investigation had culminated in filing of the charge-sheet, and similarly placed co-accused had already been granted bail by the trial court. It was also argued that none of the offences invoked carry punishment of death or life imprisonment, thus attracting the settled principle favouring grant of bail..After hearing both sides, the High Court noted that the petitioners have been in custody for about seven months and that a preliminary charge-sheet has already been prepared, though further investigation is stated to be ongoing. The Court also observed that the apprehensions of the prosecution could be adequately addressed by imposing strict bail conditions..The Court further noted that the offences alleged against the petitioners do not carry punishment of death or life imprisonment, and therefore do not attract the statutory bar for grant of bail under Section 480 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). It reiterated that in such cases, bail should ordinarily be granted unless there are compelling circumstances such as risk of absconding or tampering with evidence.."It is also well settled that the bar imposed under Section 480 of BNSS on the exercise of the discretion in the matters of bail subject to proviso contained in the section, is confined to the offences carrying a sentence of death or imprisonment for life in alternative and the offences carrying a sentence of imprisonment for life disjunctive of death sentence are exempted from the embargo," the Court stated..Hence, it granted bail to both accused subject to conditions including furnishing surety bonds of ₹1 lakh each, cooperation with the investigation, regular appearance before the trial court, non-interference with witnesses, and restriction on leaving the country without prior permission..Advocates AP Singh, Deachan Angmo and Nikhil Verma appeared for the petitioners.On behalf of the respondent, the case was argued by Deputy Solicitor General of India (DSGI) Vishal Sharma and Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC) Eishaan Dadhichi along with IPS officer Rishabh Shukla, who appeared in his capacity the Investigating Officer in the case.[Read Order]