Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Ut Of J & K vs Faisal Ahmad Shah on 20 May, 2026
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
Sr. No. 120
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
(through virtual Mode)
CRM(M) No. 334/2026
UT of J & K .... Appellant(s)
Through:- Mr. Faheem Nisar Shah, Advocate.
V/s
Faisal Ahmad Shah .....Respondent(s)
Through:-
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
ORDER
20.05.2026.
1. The petitioner has challenged order dated 31.03.2026 passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bandipora, whereby application of the
respondent seeking bail in a case arising out of FIR No. 274/2025
registered with Police Station, Bandipora alleging commission of offences
under Section 8/22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
(NDPS) Act has been accepted and the respondent has been released on
bail.
2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge on the ground that the learned Judge has not
applied his mind while passing the impugned order. It has been further
submitted that the respondent is a habitual offender and, as such, the
Court below ought not have granted bail in his favour. It has further been
submitted that offences with which the respondent has been charged, have
2 CRM(M) No. 334/2026
serious societal ramifications and granting bail to the respondent would
encourage the elements having similar bent of mind.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on
record.
5. It is not in dispute that quantity of contraband recovered from the
possession of the respondent falls within the parameters of intermediate
quantity. Therefore, rigors of Section 37 of NDPS are not attracted to the
present case. In these circumstances, grant of bail to the respondent was
with the discretion of the learned trial Court. The said discretion was
required to be exercised on parameters laid down by various judicial
precedents of the Supreme Court and this Court as in any other non-
bailable offence. These parameters include the factors like stage of
investigation, capacity of the accused to tamper with the prosecution
witnesses, the gravity of the offence, the public interest and similar other
considerations.
6. If we have a look at the impugned order passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, it is clear that all the aforesaid factors have
been taken into account by the learned Judge while passing the impugned
order. It has been noted in the impugned order that investigation of the
case is complete and charge-sheet has been filed before the Court. It has
also been noted by learned Additional Sessions Judge that there is nothing
on record to show that the respondent is likely to commit a similar offence
or that he has potential to tamper with the prosecution witnesses. It is to
be noted that the contention that the respondent is a repeated offender was
not raised by the petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge.
3 CRM(M) No. 334/2026
7. In view of the above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the
well reasoned order of bail passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Bandipora.
8. The petition lacks merits and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Sanjay Dhar)
Judge
JAMMU
20.05.2026
NEHA-1
Neha Kumari
2026.05.20 15:49
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
[ad_1]
Source link
