Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Nawaz Ahmed Dar & Anr vs Union Of India on 3 July, 2026
Author: Sindhu Sharma
Bench: Sindhu Sharma
Sr. No. 06
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Crl A(S) No. 05/2026
CrlM No. 534/2026
Nawaz Ahmed Dar & anr. .... Appellant/Applicant(s)
Through:- Mr. Prince Khanna, Advocate
V/s
Union of India .....Respondent/non-applicant(s)
Through:- Mr. Sumant Sudan, Advocate vice
Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI.
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE
ORDER
03.07.2026
CrlM No. 534/2026
01. This application has been filed by the applicants/appellants
for suspension of sentence. It is submitted that the applicants-Nawaj
Ahmed Dar and Mohd. Altaf have been convicted by the Special Judge,
NDPS Court, Jammu in case titled ‘Union of India vs. Nawaj Ahmed
Dar & anr.’ under Sections 8/20/29 NDPS Act and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and also to pay a fine of
Rs.1,00,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, they shall further
undergo rigorous imprisonment of 06 months.
02. This application has been opposed by the respondent’s
counsel on the ground that the offences committed by the applicants are
very heinous in nature and against the society at large and involves
harsh punishment. It is submitted that keeping in view the gravity of the
2
offences, the applicants do not deserve the concession of suspension of
sentence.
03. Nominal Roll has been received from the Superintendent,
District Jail, Jammu which reveals that the applicants have undergone
sentence of more than 05 years i.e., substantial part of the sentence. The
applicants have also assailed the judgment impugned dated 27.02.2026
on various grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal which are
required to be considered with regard to the evidence during the trial
and the appeal is likely to take some time.
04. Learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon the
judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Narcotic Control Bureau vs.
Lakhwinder Singh reported as 2025 INSC 190 wherein it has been
observed as under:-
“………. 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 releasing the accused on bail pending
the appeal. If the relief of bail is denied 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.”.
3
It is submitted that in the present case also, the applicants
have already undergone half of the punishment imposed, as such, the
applicants are entitled to bail.
05. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel
for the applicants as well as learned counsel for the non-applicants and
keeping in view the fact that the hearing of the appeal will take some
time and the applicants have already undergone half of the sentence, as
such, this application is allowed and the impugned sentence is
suspended. As a consequence, the applicants are admitted to bail on
furnishing surety bonds to the tune of Rs.1.00 lac each to the
satisfaction of the Registrar Judicial of this Court and bonds of personal
recognizance of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of
Superintendent of Jail concerned within the condition that the
applicants shall remain present in this Court on each and every date of
hearing.
06. The present application is, accordingly, disposed of.
07. List the main appeal on 10.09.2026.
(SINDHU SHARMA)
Judge
JAMMU
RAM MURTI/PS
03.07.2026
Ram Murti
2026.07.04 17:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
