J&K High Court Denies Bail to Retired SP in Sikh Youth Murder Case
No Bail for Retired SP in Sikh Youth Murder Case

Retired Police Officer Denied Bail in High-Profile Murder Case

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has delivered a significant verdict by refusing bail to retired Superintendent of Police Sheikh Mehmood, who stands accused in the murder case of Sikh youth Avtar Singh. The court pronounced that the former police officer can receive necessary medical treatment while remaining in judicial custody.

Justice Sanjay Dhar announced the decision on November 4, 2025, while disposing of multiple legal petitions including four bail applications, six criminal revision petitions, and one petition under Section 528 of the BNSS. The case stems from a violent land dispute that turned fatal in 2024, resulting in Avtar Singh's death.

Medical Grounds Fail to Secure Bail

Sheikh Mehmood, also known as Modi, had sought bail primarily on medical grounds, claiming he suffers from serious health conditions including cardiac ailments and Crohn's disease. The retired officer argued that these conditions require specialized treatment available only outside Jammu and Kashmir.

He maintained that he had been in custody since March 3, 2024, and emphasized his decorated police career and clean criminal record. The accused also claimed he was in Delhi for medical check-ups on the day the incident occurred and had been falsely implicated in the case.

However, the High Court remained unconvinced by these arguments. Justice Dhar referenced the medical board's report from August 14, which examined the retired SP during the bail proceedings. While confirming Mehmood's medical history of heart surgery in January 2010 and Crohn's disease diagnosis since 2013, the report indicated no evidence of deteriorating health in prison.

Court's Firm Stance on Jail Medical Facilities

The court's judgment made it clear that the medical conditions cited by the accused don't necessitate his release. "It is not reported that his aforesaid ailments cannot be managed while he is in jail," Justice Dhar observed in the ruling.

The court further noted that "The only thing that has been reported by the medical board is that he requires continuous medication and close follow-up. This can be provided to him even while being incarcerated in jail." This statement underscores the judiciary's confidence in the prison system's ability to handle complex medical cases.

The rejection of bail on medical grounds sends a strong message about the court's approach to serious criminal cases, even when the accused are former law enforcement officials with health concerns.

Multiple Accused in Complex Legal Battle

The case involves nearly a dozen individuals arrested in connection with Avtar Singh's death. Those charged with murder, attempted murder, and criminal conspiracy include:

  • Parshotam Singh
  • Sachin Patyal
  • Ravinder Kumar Gupta
  • Davinder Pal Singh
  • Suraj Singh
  • Varun Kumar
  • Vikas Singh
  • Sandeep Charak

Meanwhile, three individuals—Sharat Puri, Rajat Jandiyal, and Raghunandan Singh alias Raghu—were discharged by the trial court. However, the J&K government and the deceased's father have filed separate criminal revision petitions challenging this discharge.

The trial court has also identified three additional individuals—Jaipreet Singh alias Honey, Poonam Kumari, and Ghambir Singh—as involved in the case, though their exact roles remain under investigation.

Other accused persons have filed criminal revision petitions and bail applications in the High Court, denying any conspiracy or intent to kill. They argue that none of them were armed during the incident, and the weapon used to kill Avtar Singh was picked up from the spot spontaneously.

The High Court, while disposing of these petitions, noted that despite the assailants being unarmed initially, this fact alone wasn't sufficient to conclude that the case represented a sudden fight rather than murder at this stage of proceedings.

This developing case continues to draw significant public attention as it involves a retired police officer and raises important questions about land disputes, criminal justice, and medical bail considerations in serious offenses.