Bail is rule, not exception, in non-bailable offences without death/life imprisonment bar post charge-sheet; parity with co-accused; influential status mitigated by conditions preventing tampering; prolonged custody violates personal liberty.

JUDGMENT :

MOHD YOUSUF WANI, J.

01. Through the medium of instant successive petitions filed in terms of the provisions of Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as BNSS for short), the petitioners have sought bail in case FIR No. 144/2025 dated 25.09.2025 of Police Station, Leh, in their favour on the grounds inter alia that they are innocent and have not committed the alleged offences under the case FIR. That they have been falsely and frivolously implicated in the case FIR on the basis of political rivalry. That their plea regarding their innocence has by and enlarge remained unrebutted before the Courts below. That the alleged statement/press conference attributed to the Petitioner No.1-Smanla Dorje Nurboo was made by him in good faith as a public representative concerning the health conditions of the persons who were on the hunger strike and were belonging to his constituency.

That petitioner No.1 was in hospital immediately after the alleged press conference made in the office of the Congress Party. That petitioner No.1 continued to be in hospital attending to the critical condition of the persons who were on hunger strike and continued to be with them on the fateful day of 24.09.2025. That the youth of Apex body as well as the religious organizations viz Shia, Sunni and Buddhist religious organizations had given a call in the late evening of 23.09.2025 for a bandh on 24.09.2025. That petitioner No.1 was not part of any Apex body of youth or of religious organizations. That the important factual aspect to the effect that Apex body which earlier comprised of all organizations of the Ladakh including members of political parties was re-constituted and members of political parties particularly of congress were removed as members of a political Apex body to ensure that composition and nature of the Apex body remains a political was known to the police concerned. That unfortunate incident of 24.09.2025 thus was wholly unrelated to the alleged press conference of the petitioner No.1 dated 23.09.2025.

That even if the statement/press conference as alleged is supposed to have been so made, yet a cursory reading and understanding of the same would indicate that there was nothing suggestive that the said conference/statement was aimed at achieving any illegal consequences. That the import and purport of the alleged statement/press conference of the petitioner No.1viewed from any angle was to invite the attention of the administration to the issue relating to the conditions of the persons of his constituency who were on hunger strike. That FIR No. 142/2025 was registered with the Police Station, Leh under Sections 192, 351(2) BNS concerning the said conference. That since the offences alleged in case FIR No. 142/2025 of Police Station Leh were bailable, therefore, the mischievous object of arresting petitioner No.1 on false grounds, was achieved by showing his involvement in case FIR No. 144/2025. That the doubtful issue regarding applicability of Section 109 BNS was itself appreciated by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Leh while granting bail to co-accused persons in the case FIR. That the allegations made against three co-accused in the case FIR in question, who were already granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Leh are almost identical. That petitioner No.1 was not present on the fateful day of 24.09.2025 either on or around the place of occurrence as he was in hospital attending the deteriorating condition of the persons on hunger strike. That the petitioner has been in custody in the case FIR since 27.09.2025. That the petitioner No.1 has been suffering incarceration in violation of his