Sr. No. 20 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR (through virtual mode) CrlA(D) No. 29/2024 Union Territory through Police Station Kakapora, Pulwama (Home Department) …. Petitioner(s) Through:- Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Sr. AAG with Ms. Maha Majeed, Advocate. V/s 1. Shanif Akbar Bhat, S/o Mohammad Akbar R/o Khadermooh, Kakapora of District Pulwama. 2. Irfan Ahmad Dar, S/o Ghulam Mohammad, R/o Samboora, Kakapora, Pulwama. 3. Sameer Ahmad Sheikh, S/o Ghulam Rasool Sheikh, R/o Sethergund, Kakapora, Pulwama. …..Respondent(s) Through:- Mr. Wajid Mohammad Haseeb, Advocate. CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE. ORDER 11.05.2026 1. This is an appeal by the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir filed in terms of Section 21(4) of National Investigating Agency Act (NIA Act) seeking to challenge an order dated 28.11.2023, whereby the respondents have been granted bail in case FIR No. 68/2020 of Police Station Kakapora, Pulwama for offences under Section 18, 20, 23, 39 ULA(P) Act and 4/5 Exp. Sub. Act. 2 CrlA(D) No. 29/2024 2. The impugned order has been assailed by the appellant primarily on the ground that the trial Court has not appreciated that there was ample material to connect the respondents with the commission of offences alleged in the FIR No. 68/2020 and, therefore, there was no justification for allowing the concession of bail to the respondents involved in very serious and heinous offences against the State. 3. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused material on record, we find that the Additional Sessions Judge, a Special Judge designating under NIA, Pulwama granted bail to the respondents vide order dated 28.11.2023 after evaluating the evidence of 11 out of 15 witnesses recorded during the trial. 4. This order was called in question by the appellants in terms of CrlA(D) No. 29/2024 filed in the year 2024. We are in May, 2026. More than two and half years have passed, not even a single witness has been recorded. 04 witnesses are yet to be recorded but there seems to be no hurry for the prosecution. 5. Having regard to the manner in which the prosecution has been conducting the trial and also looking into the reasons given by the trial court while granting bail, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of bail impugned in this appeal. 6. This appeal is found to be devoid of any merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. (Wasim Sadiq Nargal) (Sanjeev Kumar) Judge Judge JAMMU 11.05.2026 NEHA-1 Neha Kumari 2026.05.12 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document