Abdul Rashid Shah vs Union Territory Of J And K Th.S.H.O P/S … on 3 July, 2026

    0
    5
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench

    Abdul Rashid Shah vs Union Territory Of J And K Th.S.H.O P/S … on 3 July, 2026

    Author: Sanjay Dhar

    Bench: Sanjay Dhar

                                                                 S. No.125
                                                                 Suppl. List
    
    ,,,   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                              AT SRINAGAR
    
    
    
    
                                 CRM(M) No.430/2026
                                 CrlM (987/2026), CrlM (988/2026)
    
    ABDUL RASHID SHAH
                                                         .....Petitioner(s)
                                       Through: Mr.Bhat Fayaz, Advocate
                    V/s
    
    
    UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K TH.S.H.O P/S BANDIPORA
                                        ... ..Respondent(s)
    
                                      Through: None
    
    
    CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
    
                                      ORDER
    

    03.07.2026

    1. The petitioner through the medium of present petition has

    SPONSORED

    thrown challenge to FIR No.58/2026 for offence under Section

    8/18 NDPS Act registered with Police Station Bandipora.

    2. As per the impugned FIR, on 09.05.2026 the police of

    Police Station, Bandipora received information from reliable

    sources that the petitioner is cultivating poppy plants in his land

    situated at Shah Mohalla, Aloosa Bandipora and that he is

    intending to indulge in sale of contraband substance after its

    cultivation in an illicit manner. On the basis of this information

    the impugned FIR came to be registered.

    CRM(M) No.430/2026 1|P a g e

    3. The petitioner has challenged the impugned FIR on the

    ground that the same does not disclose the essential ingredients

    of offences punishable under Section 8/18 of NDPS Act. It has

    been contended that even if the contents of the impugned FIR

    are taken to be true at their face value, the same do not constitute

    any offence. It has also been contended that there is no

    reference of any quantity, seizure, recovery etc of the contraband

    substance and that criminal law has been set into motion against

    the petitioner on the basis of omnibus and bald allegations.

    4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused

    the record of the case.

    5. As is clear from the contents of the impugned FIR, the

    petitioner is alleged to be indulging in illicit cultivation of poppy

    plant in his land situated at Shah Mohalla, Aloosa, Bandipora.

    Section 8(b) of NDPS Act prohibits cultivation of opium poppy

    or any cannabis plant, whereas, Section 18 of the NDPS Act

    makes the offence of cultivation of opium poppy plant

    punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year in

    case contravention involves small quantity and up to 20 years in

    case contravention involves commercial quantity.

    6. As per Section 37 of NDPS Act, every offence punishable

    under the said Act is cognizable in nature. Therefore, whether

    the contravention with regard to cultivation of poppy plant by

    CRM(M) No.430/2026 2|P a g e
    the petitioner is relating to small quantity or whether it relates to

    commercial quantity, in both eventualities offence disclosed

    against the petitioner is cognizable in nature. The respondent

    Investigating Agency is, therefore, well within its jurisdiction to

    register an FIR on the basis of the information received by it

    which clearly discloses commission of cognizable offences.

    7. This Court, while exercising its power under Section 528

    of BNSS, cannot interdict the Investigating Agency from

    undertaking investigation of the case, once the allegations made

    in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence. The

    contention of the petitioner that the contents of the impugned

    FIR do not disclose commission of any offence, is absolutely

    misconceived, because, the contents of the impugned FIR clearly

    disclose commission of cognizable offences.

    8. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this

    petition. The same is dismissed alongwith connected CMS.

    (SANJAY DHAR)
    JUDGE

    SRINAGAR
    03.07.2026
    Sarveeda Nissar

    1. Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
    Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No

    Sarveeda Nissar CRM(M) No.430/2026 3|P a g e
    I attest to the accuracy and
    authenticity of this document
    every page at bottom left side
    07.07.2026 13:35



    Source link

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here