Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Sabzar Ahmad Sheikh vs Union Territory Through Police on 2 July, 2026
Serial No. 01
REGULAR CAUSE LIST
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CrlA(D) 68/2025
Sabzar Ahmad Sheikh
...Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Shariq J Reyaz, Advocate
Vs.
Union Territory Through Police ...Respondent(s)
Station CIK.
Through: Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Sr. AAG with
Ms. Maha Majeed, Assisting Counsel
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHD YOUSUF WANI, JUDGE
ORDER
02.07.2026
01. The appellant herein has preferred the present appeal
against an order dated 16th June, 2025, passed by the Court of
the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge
Designated under the NIA Act), at Srinagar [“the Special
Court”] in bail application titled “Union Territory of J&K SHO
Police Station CIK Srinagar Vs. Mohd Akbar Bhat and Ors.”,
whereby the bail application of the appellant herein in case FIR
No. 05/2020 under Sections 13, 17, 18, 40 of UA(P) Act at Police
Station, CIK Srinagar has been rejected.
02. The impugned order has been assailed by the appellant
on multiple grounds, including on the ground that all the
witnesses cited by the prosecution against the appellant have
MIR ARIF MANZOOR
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
04.07.26
CrlA (D) 68/2025 Page No. 1
already been examined and that none of them have deposed
anything incriminatory against him.
03. Mr. Shariq J Reyaz, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant submits that there is no material placed by the
prosecution with the chargesheet and substantiated by the
prosecution witnesses which would even remotely connect
appellant with the commission of offences which the appellant
has been charged with. It is further argued by the learned
counsel appearing for the appellant that the order impugned
rejecting the bail plea of the appellant is also not sustainable for
the reason that the Special Court has not taken note of statement
of seven out of total eight prosecution witnesses cited against
the appellant, who have not supported the prosecution case at
all.
04. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material on record, we are of the considered
opinion that the order impugned passed by the Special Court
lacks application of mind and, therefore, cannot sustain in law.
It is not in dispute that on the date the bail application of the
appellant was decided by the Special Court, seven out of eight
witnesses cited in the chargesheet against the appellant stood
examined. The Special Court has merely relied upon the
chargesheet presented by the respondent and has not adverted
MIR ARIF MANZOOR
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
04.07.26
CrlA (D) 68/2025 Page No. 2
to the depositions made by the prosecution witnesses in the
Court.
05. Had the Special Court adverted to the statements of
witnesses recorded during the course of trial, more particularly,
when seven out of eight witnesses cited by the prosecution
against the appellant stood examined, the Appellate Court may
have passed a different order.
06. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the failure on the
part of the Special Court to advert to the depositions made by
the prosecution witnesses recorded as on the date of the passing
of the impugned order, more particularly the witnesses which
are cited by the prosecution against the appellant, has vitiated
the order impugned.
07. Without going into the merits of the case, we are of the
considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the
Special Court deserves to be set aside and the matter remanded
back to the Special Court for fresh consideration in the light of
the statements of witnesses recorded during the trial. Ordered
accordingly.
08. Let the Special Court take up the bail application for
consideration afresh and decide the same after hearing both the
sides and considering all the relevant material available on
MIR ARIF MANZOOR
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
04.07.26
CrlA (D) 68/2025 Page No. 3
record, including the statement of all the eight witnesses
examined during the trial qua the appellant.
09. The appellant shall appear before the Special Court on
14.07.2026.
10. The Special Court shall make all possible endeavour to
dispose of the bail application with reasonable dispatch, but in
any case, not exceeding a period of two months from the date
the appellant appears before the Special Court along with this
order.
11. Disposed of.
(Mohd Yousuf Wani) (Sanjeev Kumar)
Judge Chief Justice (Acting)
SRINAGAR:
02.07.2026
"Mir Arif"
MIR ARIF MANZOOR
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
04.07.26
CrlA (D) 68/2025 Page No. 4
