Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Feroz Ahmad Khan Alias vs Union Territory Through on 24 July, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CrlM(1757/2025) in CrlA(S) 18/2025
CrlM(771/2026) c/w CrlA(S) 16/2025
CrlM(1675/2025
Reserved on: 10.07.2026
Pronounced on: 24 .07.2026
Uploaded on: 24 .07.2026
Whether the operative part or full
judgment is pronounced: Full
FEROZ AHMAD KHAN ALIAS ...Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s).
RAJA
Through: Mr. S.T. Hussain, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Zahid Hussain, Advocate
Ms. Nida Nazir, Advocate
Mr. Mufti Muhtashim, Advocate
Ms. Mehak Amin, Advocate
Vs.
UNION TERRITORY THROUGH ...Respondent(s).
POLICE STATION CRIME
BRANCH KASHMIR
Through: None
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHD YOUSUF WANI, JUDGE
JUDGEMWENT
(CrlM(1757/2025) & CrlM(1675/2025)
1. Applicants/appellants came to be convicted at the trial of the case titled
“Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir through Police Station Crime
Branch, Kashmir, Srinagar Versus Mudasir Sultan Bhat and Ors.”, File No.
NDPS Cases/35/2024, CNR No. JKSGD01-000452-2022, bearing Case
FIR No. 19/2021 of the aforesaid Police Station, by the Court of learned
Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Srinagar (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial
court’ for short), vide its judgment dated 29.09.2025, for commission of
offences under Sections 8/22 read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act and
1|Page CrlM(1757/2025) & CrlM(1675/2025)
8/22 read with Section 29 NDPS Act and Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC,
respectively.
2. Upon their conviction and through the order of sentence dated
14.10.2025, the applicant/appellant Feroz Ahmad Khan alias Jaja was
sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and a fine of
Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lac), with the stipulation of undergoing further rigorous
imprisonment for one year in default of payment of fine, for commission of
the offence under Section 22 of the NDPS Act. He was also awarded the
same punishment for commission of the offence under Section 29 of the
NDPS Act.
3. Applicant/appellant Mudasir Sultan Bhat @ Majid was also awarded
the same punishment as awarded to the applicant/appellant Feroz Ahmad
Khan alias Jaja for commission of the offences under Sections 22 and 29 of
the NDPS Act. However, for commission of the offence under Section 420
IPC, he was sentenced to simple imprisonment for three years and a fine of
Rs. 5,000/- (five thousands), with the stipulation of undergoing further
rigorous imprisonment for three months in default of payment of fine.
Under Section 468 IPC, he was awarded simple imprisonment for three
years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousands), with the stipulation that, in
case of default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further rigorous
imprisonment for three months. Under Section 471 IPC, the said
applicant/appellant Mudasir Sultan Bhat @ Majid was awarded simple
imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousands), with
the stipulation of undergoing further rigorous imprisonment for three
months in default of payment of fine.
2|Page CrlM(1757/2025) & CrlM(1675/2025)
4. The applicants/appellants have assailed the judgment of conviction
dated 29.09.2025 and the order of sentence dated 14.10.2025 through
separate appeals pending before this Court. Alongside the main appeals, the
applicants have also filed applications for suspension of sentences on
almost similar grounds that the impugned judgment of conviction and order
of sentence suffer from patent illegality and perversity, as they have been
convicted and sentenced by compromising their fundamental right to life
and liberty on the basis of evidence which did not prove their guilt beyond
any shadow of doubt, as was required in view of the cardinal principle of
criminal jurisprudence adopted by our legal system. That the impugned
judgment of conviction is mainly based on circumstantial evidence which
is not so cogent as to rule out every hypothesis except the hypothesis of
their guilt. That they have been convicted for the offence of conspiracy and
abetment as defined and made punishable under Section 29 of the NDPS
Act when the prosecution at the trial has not been able to bring on record
even an iota of evidence to show the meeting of minds and the content of
conversation between them and the co-accused proceeded against in terms
of Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (repealed but
applicable in the case in hand and hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’ for
short).
5. The applicant/appellant No. 1 Feroz Ahmad Khan @ Jaja has further
submitted in his appeal that he seems to have been convicted solely on the
basis that one witness (PW-17) has said that he, i.e., the
applicant/appellant, had asked him to collect a consignment from Jhelum
Roadways, which was seized in the case and, on opening the same,
contraband was allegedly recovered, when the Court has observed that the
3|Page CrlM(1757/2025) & CrlM(1675/2025)
said consignment had been booked by the applicant/appellant No. 2,
namely, Mudasir Sultan Bhat @ Majid, in the name of the Company
Hurairah Pharmaceutical and which, by the prosecution itself, is said to
have been purchased by the applicant/appellant Mudasir Sultan Bhat @
Majid by allegedly making huge transfers to the manufacturing company.
The said applicant/appellant No. 1 has further averred in his application
that the learned trial court has based the judgment of conviction also on the
statement of his maternal uncle (PW-24), who has allegedly said that he
had let out one godown to him at Tengpora, Srinagar, where he, i.e., the
applicant, used to store medicines. That contrary to the said submission, the
prosecution itself shows that no recovery has been effected or made from
the godown purportedly possessed by him on lease and, in the whole
prosecution case, there is not even a single witness whispering to have seen
him engaged in the business of medicines. That the manner in which the
charge was framed against him suffers from patent illegality and goes to
the root of the case, as the same discerns complete non-application of mind
on the part of the learned trial court, as he was never read the charge of
conspiracy or the alleged fact that he had asked PW-17 to collect the
consignment from Jhelum Roadways on the date of occurrence or that he
had been storing the contraband in his godown at Tengpora, Srinagar,
which purportedly he had taken on lease from his maternal uncle (PW-24).
6. The applicant/appellant No.1 has further averred in the memo of
appeal that his conviction is based on the statements of prosecution
witnesses PWs Nos. 17, 20 and 24 who have stated in their depositions
that he i.e., applicant/appellant had asked PW-17 to collect a consignment
from Jehlum roadways and to drop it at his godowan at Tengpora
4|Page CrlM(1757/2025) & CrlM(1675/2025)
Srinagar, which PW-24 has said to have been let out by him to the
applicant/appellant. That his conviction has also been based on the
statement of PW 20 allegedly to the effect that he i.e., applicant used to
receive consignment on behalf of Hurairah Pharmaceutical. That however
the fact is that none of the aforesaid witnesses has been able to link him
with the consignment which was seized and recovered from Jehlum
roadways. That the investigation in the case was conducted in complete
disregard of the mandatory provisions of sections 42 and 52 of NDPS Act
which was applicable in the case being incident of prior information. It has
been further pleaded by the applicant/appellant No. 1 in his case that the
statements made by the prosecution witnesses during the trial would show
from corroborations and more huge contradictions which fact has been
completely ignored by the learned trial court while deciding the case. That
no recovery has been shown to have been made from him nor any
financial trail stands attributed to him so as to connect him with the
alleged crime.
7. The applicant/appellant No.2 Mudasir Sultan Bhat @ Majid has inter
alia averred in his memo of appeal that the mandatory provisions of
section 42 of NDPS Act were observed in breach by the investigating
agency during the investigation of the case which fact goes to the root of
the case. That the provisions of section 52(2A) of the NDPS Act were also
observed in breach during investigation of the case. That the contraband
alleged to have been seized was never produced in the court nor shown to
the applicant/appellant when he was examined under section 342 and as
such the entire proceedings become void especially when provisions of
section 57 of NDPS Act being mandatory were not followed at all. That
5|Page CrlM(1757/2025) & CrlM(1675/2025)
the mandatory provisions regarding seizure, sealing and sampling of the
contraband were not complied with. That the applicant/appellant was not
afforded opportunity to defend himself in terms of provisions of section
235 of the Code before awarding him conviction.
8. It has been pleaded in the instant applications on behalf of both the
applicants/appellants that they have been facing incarceration since long.
That applicant/appellant No.1 Feroz Ahmad Khan @ Jaja is reported to
have been arrested on 10.01.2022 who was subsequently released on bail
vide order dated 23.02.2024 of the learned Principal Sessions Judge,
Srinagar. He was again taken into custody on his conviction on
23.02.2024. So the applicant/appellant No.1 has undergone imprisonment
for a period of more than four and a half years till date.
9. The applicant/appellant No.2, Mudasir Sultan Bhat @ Majid is reported
to have been arrested in the case on 06.08.2021 and as such he has been in
custody in the case since about last five years.
10. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants/appellants in respect
of the instant applications for suspension of sentences who reiterated their
stands taken respectively in the memos of appeals.
11. The learned counsel mainly contended that the conviction of the
applicants has not been established by the prosecution at the trial
beyond any shadow of doubt. That they in view of the principles
governing the “Appreciation of Evidence” and “Burden of Proof”
in criminal cases were deserving their acquittal but the learned trial
court has given credibility to the evidence which is full of
6|Page CrlM(1757/2025) & CrlM(1675/2025)
contradictions and does not establish the guilt of the applicantsbeyond any shadow of doubt. They contended that the mandatory
provisions of the NDPS Act especially under sections 42, 52 (2A), 57,
55, as also section 235 of the Code have been observed in breach
which vitiates the trial. It has been further contended by the learned
counsel for the applicants that they have been facing incarceration in
the case for about last 5 years and they being young boys deserve to
be extended the concession of bail. It has been further contended by
the learned counsel that since the applicants/appellants are the adult
male issues of their parents, as such, their families have got
shuttered due to their continued incarceration. The learned counsel
further contended that there is merit in their appeals which are sure to
succeed and as such the applicants deserve the concession of bail upon
suspension of their sentences.
12. The learned counsel, in support of their contentions, placed
reliance upon the judgments reported as AIR 2011 SC 136, AIR 2014
SC 1384, AIR 2014 SC 345, 2021 CriLJ 514 and 2017 (2) J&K 10.
13. The respondent-State, despite being provided ample
opportunities, did not choose to appear and argue the instant
applications.
14. I have perused the instant applications for suspension of sentences,
which are supported by affidavits. I have also gone through the record
of the main appeals, especially the impugned judgment of conviction
dated 29.09.2025 and the order of sentence dated 14th October, 2025.
7|Page CrlM(1757/2025) & CrlM(1675/2025)
15. As hereinbefore mentioned, the applicant/appellants stand
convicted for commission of offences under Sections 22 and 29 of the
NDPS Act (applicant/appellant No. 1) and under Sections 22 and 29
of the NDPS Act and Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC
(applicant/appellant No. 2). The sentences, as hereinbefore mentioned,
awarded to them have been directed to run concurrently. So, the
applicants/appellants, in view of the order of sentence dated
14.10.2025, have to remain in custody for a period of 10 years. They
have already undergone a period of about 5 years, which has been
directed to be set off against the sentences of imprisonment provided
as per Section 425 of the Code.
16. The applicants/appellants have raised important facto-legal issues
in the main appeals which need to be addressed by this Court in the
main appeals. They have, as per their detailed memos of appeals,
alleged violation of the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act as
contained under Sections 42, 52-A, 55 and 57. Substantial
contradictions regarding material particulars of the case have also
been alleged. The applicability of the provisions of Section 29 of the
NDPS Act regarding conspiracy has also been thrown to challenge in
the main appeals. It has also been mentioned in the instant
applications that both the applicants are young boys whose youth has
got spoiled in custody.
17. The learned counsel for the applicants/appellants, during their
arguments, inter alia contended that the provisions of Section 37 of the
NDPS Act regarding bail are not applicable post-conviction, while
8|Page CrlM(1757/2025) & CrlM(1675/2025)
consideration of suspension of sentences has to be made in the light of
the merits of the appeals against conviction.
18. The main appeals have been pending disposal in this case since
October, 2025 and are likely to take more time for their disposal. The
applicants/appellants have got their fundamental right to life and
liberty, which is likely to get eclipsed by their continued detention
without prompt disposal of their appeals. They have already
undergone half of the highest substantive punishment of imprisonment
for 10 years.
19. Nominal rolls have been perused, which do not appear to be accurate.
20. The Hon’ble Apex Court has been, time and again, issuing directions
regarding the release of under-trials/convicts who have undergone half of
the substantive punishments/sentences provided /awarded in respect of the
offences charged/convicted of, with no immediate prospect of the
conclusion of the trial/appeal. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in its judgments
cited as Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial
Prisoners v. Union of India and Others, (1994) 6 SCC 731, and Narcotics
Control Bureau v. Lakwinder Singh, Criminal Appeal No. 475 of 2025,
decided on 29.01.2025, has passed directions for grant of bail to under-
trials/accused who have already undergone half of the substantive
sentences provided for the offences charged and also for suspension of
sentences pending appeals in cases where the convicts have similarly
undergone substantial portions of their awarded sentences.
9|Page CrlM(1757/2025) & CrlM(1675/2025)
21. In Narcotic Control Bureau vs. Lakwinder Singh (supra), the Hon’ble
High Court through the order impugned had granted relief of suspension of
sentence and bail to the respondent/convict pending appeal against his
conviction. The respondent had been convicted by the trial Court for an
offence punishable under the NDPS Act. The substantive sentence of the
respondent/convict was 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. In the appeal
of the year 2021, the Hon’ble High Court noted that the
respondent/convict had undergone incarceration for a period of four and a
half years out of the fixed term sentence of 10 years. As the appeal was not
likely to be heard before the completion of the sentence, the High Court
granted relief of suspension of sentence and bail to the respondent.
The appellant Narcotic Control Bureau assailed the order of the
Hon’ble High Court before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India through
criminal Appeal No. 475 of 2025. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, however,
dismissed the appeal and maintained the order of the Hon’ble High Court.
Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the judgment deserve a needful mention as under:
“7. At this stage, the learned ASG appearing for the petitioner
submitted that the power of the Court was constrained by
Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which is applicable even at the
stage of an appeal. He relies upon a decision of this Court in the
case of Dadu vs State of Maharashtra. There is no dispute
about the fact that the Appellate Court is bound by constraints
of Section 37 of the NDPS Act while considering the prayer for
the grant of bail during the pendency of an appeal. However, if,
in the facts of the case, an accused has undergone a substantial
part of the substantive sentence and, considering the pendency
of criminal appeals, his appeal is not likely to be heard before
the accused undergoes the entire sentence, the Appellate Court
can exercise the power of 2 (2000) 8 SCC 437 releasing the
accused on bail pending the appeal. If the relief of bail is denied10 | P a g e CrlM(1757/2025) & CrlM(1675/2025)
in such a factual situation only on the grounds of Section 37 of
the NDPS Act, it will amount to the violation of the rights of the
accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
8. In this case, the appeal preferred by the respondent is not
likely to be heard before he undergoes the entire sentence. He
has already undergone a substantial part of his 10-year
sentence. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the
impugned order in the facts of the case. The Appeal is,
accordingly, dismissed. However, if the respondent misuses the
liberty granted to him under the impugned order, the appellant
can always apply for cancellation of bail”
22. For the foregoing discussion and without touching upon the merits
of the main appeals, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice
would be met in case the instant applications are allowed and the order
of sentence dated 14.10.2025 is kept under suspension. It is
accordingly ordered. The applicants/appellants are accordingly
admitted to bail, subject to their furnishing surety and personal bonds,
each in the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lac), (the surety bond of Rs.
1,00,000/- (one lac) to be furnished by two sureties from amongst the
near relatives of the applicants/appellants, each of whom shall be
liable to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-), to the satisfaction of the learned
Registrar Judicial, Srinagar, of this Court and the Superintendent of
Jail concerned, for assuring the fulfilment of the following conditions:
i. The applicants/appellants shall remain personally present during
the proceedings in the main appeals.
ii. The applicants/appellants shall not leave the limits of the Union
Territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh without the prior
permission of this Court.
11 | P a g e CrlM(1757/2025) & CrlM(1675/2025)
iii. The applicants/appellants shall not repeat the commission of anyoffence.
v. In case the requisite surety bonds are furnished to the satisfaction
of the learned Registrar Judicial of this Court and attested by him,
the Registry shall issue a formal release order directing the
Superintendent of the Jail concerned to release the
applicants/appellants, namely, Feroz Ahmad Khan @ Jaja S/o Abdul
Samad Khan R/o Muslimabad, Nund Reshi Colony, Bemina,
Srinagar and Mudasir Sultan Bhat @ Majid, S/o Mohammad Sultan
Bhat R/o Syedabad Sector 01 Bemina, Srinagar, forthwith from his
custody in the instant case FIR, after obtaining the requisite personal
bonds from them, in the amounts of Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lac) each.
23. Applications are disposed of.
CrlA(S) 18/2025 & CrlA(S) 16/2025
24.Main appeals bearing No. CrlA(S) No. 18/2025 and CrlA (S) No.
16/2025 shall come for hearing on 6th August, 2026.
(MOHD YOUSUF WANI)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR
24.07.2026
“Mubashir ”
i. Whether the order is speaking: Yes
ii. Whether the order is reportable: Yes
12 | P a g e CrlM(1757/2025) & CrlM(1675/2025)
