Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Union Territory Through vs Shamas Begum on 8 April, 2026
Author: Sanjeev Kumar
Bench: Sanjeev Kumar
Serial No. 14
REGULAR LIST
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CrlA(D) 36/2023 CrlM(1007/2023)
UNION TERRITORY THROUGH ...Petitioner/Appellant(s)
POLICE STATION KARNAH
Through: Ms. Maha Majeed, AC viceMr. Mohsin Qadri, Sr. AAG
Vs.
SHAMAS BEGUM ...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Irshad Ahmad, Advocate
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE
ORDE R
08.04.2026Per Sanjeev Kumar J. (oral):
1. Orders dated 15th September, 2022 and 28th November, 2022, passed
by the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge (Designated Special
Court under Section 22 of the NIA Act), Baramulla [“the trial court”]
in Bail Application No. 32/2022, are the subject matter of challenge
in this appeal filed by the Union Territory of J&K through SHO, P/S
Karnah, under Section 21(1) of the NIA Act, whereby the trial court
has made the interim bail granted to the respondent on 15th
September, 2022 absolute.
2. The impugned order dated 28.11.2022, a copy whereof has also not
placed on record of the appeal by the appellant, is challenged on the
ground that the trial court did not appreciate the preponderance of
evidence on record connecting the respondent with the commission of
offences under Sections 8/21, 29 of the NDPS Act and Section 3/ 4
Explosive Substance Act, and Sections 13, 18, 23, 39 of the ULA(P)
Act. The impugned order is also challenged on the ground that the
trial court has not considered the rigors of Section 43(D) of ULA(P)
Act and Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which place an embargo on the
grant of bail to an accused who is involved in the commission of
offences falling under Chapters IV and VI of the ULA(P) Act, as also
the offences under the NDPS Act in relation to commercial quantity.
MIR ARIF MANZOOR
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
09.04.26
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
on record, we find that the order granting bail to the respondent is
legally and factually correct and, therefore, does not call for any
interference. The trial court, having gone through the entire evidence
on record, has rightly concluded that there is no sufficient
incriminating evidence against the respondent to believe that the case
set up by the prosecution against the respondent is prima facie true.
The court has also taken note of the peripheral role attributed to the
respondent in the commission of offences alleged in the FIR. That
apart, the interim bail in this case was granted in favour of the
respondent on 15th September, 2022, and the same was made absolute
by a subsequent order passed by the trial court on 28.11.2022. The
respondent, who is a woman, is on bail ever since. There is no
complaint or allegation by the prosecution that she has either jumped
the bail or, in any manner, tried to influence or tamper with the
prosecution witnesses.
4. Having considered all aspects of the matter, particularly the reasons
given by the trial court in support of its order, we do not find it a fit
case for interference at this stage and withdrawing the concession of
bail, more particularly when the respondent is a woman and has not
violated any terms and conditions of the bail granted by the trial
court.
5. For all the reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The same
is, accordingly, dismissed.
(SANJAY PARIHAR) (SANJEEV KUMAR)
JUDGE JUDGE
SRINAGAR:
08.04.2026
"ARIF"
MIR ARIF MANZOOR
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
09.04.26
