Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Union Territory Through Police Station … vs Abdul Rashid Mir on 6 July, 2026
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
09
Regular
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CRM(M) 440/2026 CrlM(1004/2026)
UNION TERRITORY THROUGH POLICE STATION LITTER
..... Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Furqaan Yaqoob, GA
V/s
ABDUL RASHID MIR ..... Respondent(s)
Through:
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar, Judge
ORDER
06.07.2026
1. The petitioner, through the medium of present petition, has
challenged order dated 28.04.2026, passed by the learned
Special Judge, NDPS, Pulwama whereby the learned Special
Judge has in a case arising out of FIR No. 39/2026 for offence
under Section 8/20 of the NDPS Act registered with Police
Station, Litter, granted bail to the respondent/accused
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
record.
3. It appears that on 10.04.2026, the Police raided the house of
the respondent and recovered Charas Powder which he had
concealed in his house. The weight of the recovered powder
Page |2
CM(M) No. 83/2026 CM No. 1286/2026
was about 417.5 grams. The respondent/accused was arrested
and investigation was conducted by the Police.
4. The learned Special Judge, while granting bail to the
petitioner, has noted that the respondent is involved in a case
pertaining to possession of intermediate quantity of
contraband substance, as such, rigour of Section 37 of the
NDPS Act is not applicable to him. On this ground, the
learned Special Judge has granted bail to the respondent
subject to certain conditions.
5. The petitioner, has challenged the impugned order on the
grounds that the respondent has committed heinous offence
which is against the society, as such, he dos not deserve
concession of bail. It has been further contended that the
learned trial court has not appreciated the arguments and that
the contentions of the prosecution that the offence alleged to
have been committed by the respondents is against the society
and that the respondent was involved in similar activities in
the previous past, have not been dealt with by the learned
Special Judge.
Page |3
CM(M) No. 83/2026 CM No. 1286/2026
6. It is a settled law that in a case where the rigour of Section 37
of the NDPS Act is not attracted, the court has the discretion
to grant bail of course, the discretion has to be exercised on
the basis of settled principle of law as have been enunciated by
the Supreme Court and this Court in a catena of judgments.
The factors which are required to be taken into account by the
court while granting bail in such case are:
i) Danger of the accused absconding or fleeing if released
on bail.
ii) Character, behavior, means, position and standing of
the accused.
iii) Likelihood of the offence being repeated.
iv) Reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being
influenced.
v) Danger, of course of justice being thwarted by grant of
bail.
7. In the instant case, it appears from the record that the
investigation of the case has been completed and no further
recoveries are to be effected from the respondent. There is
nothing on record of the Special Judge to show that the
Page |4
CM(M) No. 83/2026 CM No. 1286/2026
respondent is likely to abscond in case where the bail is
granted to him or that he has a capacity to tamper with the
prosecution witnesses. Merely because the respondent is
involved in an offence which has an adverse impact on the
society at large, he cannot be incarcerated indefinitely once
the investigation of the case is complete. Doing so would
amount to inflicting pre-trial punishment which is
impermissible in law.
8. In view of the above, I do not find any ground to interfere
with the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge.
The petition, lacks merit and is, dismissed accordingly.
(Sanjay Dhar)
Judge
SRINAGAR
06.07.2026
Aasif
