Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Union Territory Through Police Station … vs Hilal Ahmad Tiploo on 8 April, 2026
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
10
Regular
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
Bail App 203/2025
UNION TERRITORY THROUGH POLICE STATION SOURA
.....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Maha Majid, Adv.
vice Mr. Mohsin Qadiri, Sr. AAG.
V/s
HILAL AHMAD TIPLOO
..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Mueed ul Islam, Advocate.
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar, Judge
ORDER
08.04.2026
1. The petitioner, through the medium of present petition, has
challenged order dated 14.07.2025 passed by the learned
Special Judge NDPS, Srinagar (hereinafter referred to as
Special Judge) whereby the respondent has been enlarged on
bail in a case arising out of FIR No. 85/2024 for offences
under Sections 8/20, 21, 22 of NDPS Act registered by Police
Station, Soura Srinagar.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. It appears that the petitioner is facing trial before the Special
Judge in the aforesaid case. It is case of the prosecution that
the petitioner was found to be in possession of the 14 grams of
Page |2
Bail App 203/2025
Charas, 1 gram of Brown Sugar and 20 tablets of Spasmo
Proxyon Plus. The quantity of Charas and Brown Sugar
recovered from the possession of the petitioner falls in the
Category of small quantity while as quantity of Spasmo
Proxyon Plus recovered from the possession of the petitioner
falls under intermediate quantity. Thus, the provisions of
Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted to the facts of
the present case. The grant of bail to the petitioner in these
circumstances entirely lies within the discretion of the
concerned court. However, the said discretion has to be
exercised in accordance with well recognized principles laid
down by legal precedents from time to time.
4. It is not in dispute that the investigation of the case has
already been completed and the charge sheet has been filed
against the respondent. The only ground on which the
petitioner has sought cancellation of bail of the respondent is
that he is involved in multiple FIRs of similar nature. This
aspect of the matter has been noted by the learned Special
Judge in para (43) of the impugned order. While dealing with
said contention it has been noted by the learned Special Judge
that mere registration of case without there being any
conviction recorded against the accused cannot be sole ground
Page |3
Bail App 203/2025
for denying bail to him particularly when rigour of Section 37
of the Act is applicable to the case. The said observation of
the learned Special Judge cannot be termed as perverse or
contrary to the legal position. It is to be noted that in all the
FIRs, of which reference has been made in the petition, the
respondent has been granted bail by the concerned court. It
also seems that the respondent is a victim of drug trafficking
rather than a person indulging in drug trafficking, which fact
has been noted by the learned Special Judge, while passing
impugned order.
5. In view of what has been discussed hereinbefore and in
absence of any allegation that the respondent has violated any
condition of bail, I do not find any merit in the present
petition. The same is dismissed.
(Sanjay Dhar)
Judge
SRINAGAR
08.04.2026
Aasif
