Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Mazeed Ali vs Union Territory Of J&K on 29 April, 2026
Author: Moksha Khajuria Kazmi
Bench: Moksha Khajuria Kazmi
Sr. No. 179
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Bail App No.29/2026
Mazeed Ali .....Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Abhirash Sharma, Advocate
Vs
Union Territory of J&K .....Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Sumeet Bhatia, GA
Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE
ORDER
29.04.2026
1. Through the medium of instant application, filed under Section 482 of
BNSS, 2023, petitioner seeks grant of bail in anticipation of his arrest in
FIR No.0089/2025 dated 06.11.2025 registered against one Sanjay Kumar
for alleged commission of offences under Section 8/21/22 of NDPS Act at
Police Station, Majalta.
2. As per the petitioner, the subject FIR came to be registered against one
Sanjay Kumar, wherein it has been alleged that said Sanjay Kumar was
found wandering near Gambhir Bridge and during his personal search, a
transparent polythene containing hereoin (Chitta) was recovered from
him. It is stated that another FIR No.0090/2025 also came to be registered
against the brother of the applicant, namely, Latief Ali for similar
offences as have been alleged against Sanjay Kumar in the subject FIR. It
is also stated that the petitioner is being falsely implicated in the both the
aforesaid FIRs, because accused in FIR No.0090/2025, brother of the
petitioner, was riding the motorcycle, which stands registered in the name
2
of the petitioner. Apprehending his arrest in both the FIRs, petitioner
moved an application for grant of bail in anticipation of arrest before the
Principal Sessions Judge, Udhampur, which application came to be
dismissed vide order dated 29.11.2025.
3. Insofar as FIR No.0090/2025 is concerned, the petitioner had approached
this Court by way of bail App No.368/2025, which came to be allowed
vide judgment dated 09.02.2026, thereby directing release of the
petitioner on bail in FIR No.0090/2025, subject to certain conditions
mentioned in the judgment. It is the plea of the petitioner that due to
inadvertence and oversight, while filing Bail App No.368/2025, it could
not be mentioned that the petitioner is required to be granted bail in
anticipation of arrest in FIR No.0089/2025 as well, as such, the present
application for grant of bail in anticipation of arrest in FIR No.0089/2025,
on the ground that the petitioner has neither been named in the subject
FIR nor has any recovery been made from the applicant; he has no
criminal record; the transactions which are being made basis for
implicating the petitioner in the subject FIR are traceable to the loan
availed by him for purchase of vehicle and the amount deposited by him
as sale consideration towards different lands sold out by his father.
4. In the objections filed by the respondents, the relief sought for by the
petitioner is resisted. It is stated that the petitioner is not cooperating with
the investigation. It is further stated that after having been granted bail in
FIR No.90/2025, the petitioner is not co-operating with the investigation
and has not appeared at the police station and is absconding. According to
the respondents, arrest of the petitioner is necessary for verification of the
bank transactions.
3
5. On 27.04.2026, Mr. Bhatia, learned counsel representing the respondent
was directed to seek instructions as to whether the petitioner is
cooperating with the investigation agency in terms of the bail having been
granted to him in FIR No.90/2025, vide order dated 09.02.2026 passed in
Bail App No.368/2025. He was also directed to produce the record with
respect to summoning of the petitioner by the investigating agency.
6. Today, Mr. Bhatia states that the petitioner is not cooperating with the
investigation in FIR No.90/2025. He has also produced the record with
respect to the summoning of the petitioner by the investigation, a perusal
whereof reveals that three notices have been issued to the petitioner on
13.02.2026, 16.02.2026 and 20.02.2026, however, the petitioner was not
found at home and the notices appear to have been received by the real
brother of the petitioner, namely, Latief Ali, who is accused in FIR
No.90/2025 and is on bail.
7. To the plea of the respondents that the petitioners is not cooperating with
the investigation in FIR No.90/2025, the stand of the learned counsel for
the petitioner is that if petitioner goes to the Police Station in order to
cooperate with the investigation in FIR No.90/2205, there is every
apprehension that he will be arrested in the subject FIR i.e. 89/2025,
which, as per the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner,
could be the main cause for not attending the investigation in FIR
No.90/2025. He further states that he is under instructions to state that if
he would be granted concession of interim bail, he would appear before
the I.O. on each and every date fixed by him.
8. Since the petitioner has been granted concession of bail in FIR
No.90/2025, wherein allegations leveled against the petitioner are similar
4
to the one leveled in FIR Noo.89/2025, as such, it would be in the interest
of justice, if interim concession of bail in anticipation of arrest in FIR
No.89/2025 is granted in favour of the petitioner, subject to certain
conditions.
7. Accordingly, it is directed that, till next date of hearing, in the event of
the petitioner’s arrest in FIR No.89/2025 dated 06.11.2025 registered at
Police Station, Majalta for commission of offences punishable under
Section 8/21/22 NDPS, he shall be admitted to ad-interim bail in
anticipation of arrest, subject to following conditions:
i) He shall furnish a surety bond to the tune of Rs.1.00 lac and a
personal bond of the like amount to the satisfaction of the
Investigating Officer.
ii) He shall not jump over the bail and make an attempt to tamper with
the prosecution evidence or coerce the witnesses directly or
indirectly.
iii) He shall appear before the I.O. daily, at a time to be intimated by
the I.O., and cooperate with the investigating agency.
iv) He shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of this Court without
prior permission;
v) The respondent shall be at liberty to approach this Court seeking
cancellation of the interim protection granted by this order, in the
event of petitioner’s failure to comply with the aforesaid
conditions.
8. List for consideration on 18th May, 2026.
(Moksha Khajuria Kazmi)
Judge
Jammu
29.04.2026
Vinod, Secy
Vinod Kumar
2026.04.30 10:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
