Advertisement
Advertisement

― Advertisement ―

Tribute to Late Prof. (Dr.) Ghanshyam Singh (1st April, 2026)

National Law University Delhi solemnly observed a Memorial Tribute in memory of Late Prof. (Dr.) Ghanshyam Singh on the occasion of his 16th Death...
HomeVikas Kumar Sharma vs Union Territory Of J&K on 2 April, 2026

Vikas Kumar Sharma vs Union Territory Of J&K on 2 April, 2026

ADVERTISEMENT

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Vikas Kumar Sharma vs Union Territory Of J&K on 2 April, 2026

                                           Sr. No.2026:JKLHC-JMU:964
                                                   01
     HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                     AT JAMMU

                      Case:- Bail App. No. 197/2025
                                   c/w
                            CRM(M) No. 656/2025

                                       Date of Pronouncement: 02.04.2026
                                            Date of uploading: 04.04.2026

Vikas Kumar Sharma
                                                            .... Petitioner(s)

               Through:-      Mr. Ashish Sharma, Advocate.

                V/s

Union Territory of J&K
                                                         .....Respondent(s)

               Through:-      Mr. Bhanu Jasrotia, GA.

CORAM:     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE

                               ORDER

02.04.2026

1. The petitioner, in terms of order dated 22.07.2025, had already been

SPONSORED

admitted to ad interim bail, which has been extended from time to

time. Today, the Investigating Officer is present and has produced

the Case-Diary. Perusal of the same reveals that the FSL report is

still awaited and, owing to the stay of investigation granted by this

Court, further investigation could not be carried out. It is, however,

reported that the petitioner has joined the investigation from time to

time and, after the grant of ad interim bail, his conduct has

remained supportive.

2. 2026:JKLHC-JMU:964
In the aforesaid background, except for obtaining the FSL report,

nothing further remains to be carried out in the investigation except

filing of the charge-sheet.

3. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and the order of ad

interim bail granted on 22.07.2025 is made absolute, subject to the

conditions stipulated therein.

4. The Bail Application stands disposed of accordingly and the Case-

Diary is returned.

5. The petitioner also seeks quashment of FIR No. 80/2025 dated

21.06.2025 registered under Sections 8/21/22 NDPS Act, alleging

false implication on account of political rivalry. It is pleaded that he

was picked up from Hotel Tridev, Bagnoti, and later shown to have

been in possession of 10 grams of heroin after planting of

contraband, and that CCTV footage was suppressed to conceal

illegal detention.

6. Per contra, the respondents submit that during Naka checking near

Radha Swami Satsang Ghar, Bagnoti, the petitioner, travelling in

Alto car No. JK02DL-7776, attempted to flee and, upon

apprehension, 10 grams of heroin were recovered from his

possession. The investigation further indicates linkage with co-

accused Salim Ali, supported by telephonic records, and the

contraband has been duly seized and sent for forensic examination.

7. Having heard learned counsel and perused the record, including the

Case-Diary, this Court finds that the plea of false implication and

planting of contraband raises disputed questions of fact which

cannot be adjudicated in exercise of inherent jurisdiction. The

Page 2 of 3 Bail App. No. 197/2025
c/w
CRM(M) No. 656/2025
2026:JKLHC-JMU:964
material collected during investigation prima facie discloses

commission of offences under the NDPS Act. There is nothing on

record to show that the prosecution case is ex facie false or an abuse

of process.

8. It is well settled that inherent powers are to be exercised sparingly

and not to stifle legitimate prosecution. At this stage, the defence

sought to be raised by the petitioner cannot be examined in detail.

9. Accordingly, no case for quashment is made out and the petition is

dismissed. Interim directions, if any, shall stand vacated. However,

the investigating agency shall proceed strictly in accordance with

law and consider any relevant material produced by the petitioner

during investigation.

10. Disposed of as such.

(SANJAY PARIHAR)
JUDGE
JAMMU
02.04.2026
Nikhil

Whether the order is speaking? Yes
Whether the order is reportable? No

Page 3 of 3 Bail App. No. 197/2025
c/w
CRM(M) No. 656/2025



Source link