Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Sameer Ahmad Dar vs Union Territory Through Police Station … on 29 July, 2026
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
S. No.7
Regular List
,,, IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
Bail App. No.118/2026
CrlM No(1084/2026)
SAMEER AHMAD DAR
.....Petitioner(s)
Through: Ms. Syed Gousia Tabasum, Advocate
V/s
UNION TERRITORY THROUGH POLICE STATION SUMBAL
... ..Respondent(s)
Through: Mr.Mohammad Younis, Asstt.counsel
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
ORDER
29.07.2026
1. The petitioner through the medium of present application
has sought bail in the case arising out of FIR No. 25 of 2026 for
offence under Section 8/20 of NDPS Act registered with Police
Station Sumbal.
2. As per the prosecution case, on 10.02.2024 the petitioner
was found to be carrying a bag on his shoulder and as soon as he
was noticed by the Naka party at Naka Check point on Sumbal
Mirgund Road adjacent to CRPF Camp Sumbal 45th Bn., the
petitioner attempted to slip away from the spot. However, the
police party apprehended him and conducted search of the bag
Bail App.No.118/2026 1|P a g e
which was being carried by the petitioner. During the search
charas like substance in the form of cannabis plants was
recovered from the bag. After registration of the FIR
investigation of the case was set into motion and the petitioner
was arrested. The recovered charas/cannabis plant substance
was weighed and it was found to be weighing 11kgs and 50 gms.
After drawing sample from the recovered charas it was sealed
and sent to the FSL for chemical analysis. The statements of the
witnesses acquainted with the facts of the case were recorded.
After completion of investigation of the case offences under
Section 8/20 of NDPS Act were found established against the
petitioner. Accordingly, charge sheet was laid before the
Additional Sessions Judge, Sumbal.
3. It appears that the petitioner had applied for grant of bail
before the learned Additional Sessions Judge but his bail
application came to be rejected by the said Court in terms of
order dated 18.06.2026. The learned trial Court was primarily
persuaded to reject the bail application because there are several
FIRs pending against the petitioner.
4. The petitioner has sought bail through the medium of
present petition on the ground that the contraband substance
which has been allegedly recovered from his possession does not
fall under the category of commercialized quantity, as such, the
Bail App.No.118/2026 2|P a g e
rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not applicable to the
present case. It has been contended that merely because FIRs
have been lodged against the petitioner without there being any
conviction operating against him, it was not open to the learned
trial Court to reject his bail application. It has been submitted
that indefinite incarceration of the petitioner amounts to
inflicting punishment upon him without trial, which is
impermissible in law. It has been submitted that in a case of
present nature, bail application of the petitioner was required to
be considered on the parameters as are applicable to any other
offence of non-bailable nature, but the learned trial Court has
imported the considerations of Section 37 of the NDPS Act
while rejecting the bail of the petitioner.
5. The application has been contested by the respondents by
filing their reply. In their reply the respondents have submitted
that the petitioner is a habitual offender, inasmuch as, there are
five FIRs registered against him. It has been further contended
that previous NDPS prosecutions against the petitioner have
failed to reform him and he has continued to indulge in similar
activities, as such, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. It
has been submitted that having regard to the previous conduct of
the petitioner there is a strong possibility that he would again
Bail App.No.118/2026 3|P a g e
indulge in the activities which amount to offence under NDPS
Act.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record of the case.
7. In the present case the petitioner is alleged to have been in
possession of intermediate quantity of contraband substance.
Hence the rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act are not attracted to
the case of the petitioner. In order to make out a case for grant
of bail, it is not necessary for the petitioner to demonstrate that
he is prima facie not involved in the alleged offence. The bail
application of the petitioner has to be considered on the
parameters which are applicable to any other non-bailable
offence to which rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act are not
applicable. Thus, grant of bail to the petitioner is a matter of
discretion. However, the discretion has to be exercised on
settled principles of law as have been enunciated by various
judgments rendered by the Supreme Court and by this Court
over a period of time. The factors which are to be taken into
account while granting bail in the cases of present nature are the
stage of investigation, the danger of the prosecution witnesses
being tampered with or influenced by the accused in the event of
grant of bail in his favour, the gravity of the offence, the public
interest and similar other considerations.
Bail App.No.118/2026 4|P a g e
8. Coming to the facts of the present case, the petitioner has
been arrested on 10.02.2026. Thus, he is in custody for last more
than five months. The investigation of the case is complete and
the charge sheet has been laid before the competent Court. It is
not the case of prosecution that any further recovery is to be
effected from the petitioner. The only ground on which the
respondents are resisting the bail application of the petitioner is
that he is a habitual offender, inasmuch as, he is involved in five
FIRs. Therefore, there are high chances that he may again
indulge in similar incidents.
9. If we have a look at the particulars of the FIRs which are
shown to be registered against the petitioner, it appears that out
of five FIRs registered against him only two FIRs pertain to
offences under NDPS Act. These FIRs pertain to the year 2021,
meaning thereby that during the last five years, excepting the
FIR which is subject matter of present bail application, the
petitioner is not shown to have been indulged in activities which
tantamount to any offence under NDPS Act. It is true that FIRs
under IPC and BNS stand registered against the petitioner but
there is nothing on record to show that he has indulged in
offences relating to possession/transportation of contraband
drugs during the last five years. Therefore, the apprehension of
Bail App.No.118/2026 5|P a g e
the respondents that if the petitioner is granted bail he may again
indulge in drug trafficking, appears to be ill founded.
10. Apart from the above, criminal antecedents of the petitioner
cannot form the sole consideration for rejecting his bail
application. The Court while considering the prayer for bail has
to strike balance between the right of an accused to prepare a
proper defence to the charge laid against him and the interests of
the society to safeguard it from potential criminal activities of
the accused. The cardinal principle that “bail is the rule and the
jail is an exception” holds good even in a case where the accused
is alleged to be involved in possession of intermediate quantity
of contraband substance. Therefore, merely because the accused
is alleged to be involved in FIRs besides the FIR in which he is
seeking bail, cannot become sole ground for rejecting his bail
application. Rejection of the bail to the petitioner in the instant
case at a stage when presumption of innocence is attached to
him, would amount to his pre-trial incarceration and he would be
deprived of his right to prepare the defence against the charges
which have been laid against him.
11. For the foregoing reasons, the petitioner has been able to
carve out a case for grant of bail at this stage. Accordingly, the
application is allowed and the petitioner is enlarged on bail
subject to the following conditions:-
Bail App.No.118/2026 6|P a g e
i. That he shall furnish personal bond to the tune of
Rs.50,000/- to the satisfaction of the Incharge of
concerned jail with two sureties of the like amount
to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
ii. That he shall appear before the trial Court on each
and every date of hearing unless exempted by the
trial Court.
iii. That he shall not leave the territorial limits of UT
of J&K without prior permission from the trial
Court.
iv. That he shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence.
12. Application disposed of.
(SANJAY DHAR)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR
29.07.2026
Sarveeda Nissar
1. Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
Bail App.No.118/2026 7|P a g e
