HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Bail App No. 355/2025 Makh Ram …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Idrees Saleem Dar, Advocate. vs UT of J&K .…. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Eishaan Dadhichi, GA. Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE ORDER 06.07.2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was charged vide order dated 08.04.2025 and till date out of twelve witnesses only one witness has been examined. 2. The petitioner was arrested on 12.09.2024 on account of allegations regarding recovery of 35 Kg of Ganja. No doubt the petitioner is allegedly found to be in possession of commercial quantity of Ganja, the fact seriously disputed by the petitioner, but the fact remains that for the last more than one year, prosecution has been able to examine only one witness. 3. Where there are stringent conditions for grant of bail, it becomes duty of the prosecution to ensure that the right of speedy trial of the accused is not violated and that is possible only when the prosecution produces the witnesses regularly and does not seek unnecessary adjournments. 4. Unfortunately, in this case, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, only one witness has been examined so far. Serial No. 118 2 Bail App No. 355/2025 5. Learned trial court ought to have taken note of the laxity on part of the prosecution to lead evidence, as such, on the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the present bail application is disposed of by directing the prosecution to produce the remaining witnesses without any fail and not to seek unnecessary adjournments. 6. Learned trial court is further directed to ensure that no adjournment without any sufficient cause is granted to the prosecution. 7. Disposed of. (RAJNESH OSWAL) JUDGE Jammu 06.07.2026 Sahil Padha Sahil Padha 2026.07.06 16:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document