Serial No. 05 SUPPLEMENTARY LIST IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Bail App 37/2025 MUKHTAR AHMAD BHAT …Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through: None Vs. UNION TERRITORY THROUGH POLICE STATION KUPWARA AND ANR. ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Faheem Nisar Shah, GA CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE ORDER 12.12.2025 1. The petitioner has not been represented during the last two hearings. Today, when the matter was taken up, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner, even after the matter was passed over. 2. The respondents have filed a reply, stating that the petition is misconceived. They contend that the petitioner is facing trial for a heinous offence involving burglary at the Malkhana of the Sessions Court, Kupwara. The petitioner allegedly stole 14 kg 444 grams of Brown Sugar, 11 kg 990 grams of Charas, fake American currency, and Indian currency amounting to Rs. 1,950. Additionally, two AK magazines and 71 live rounds were stolen but later recovered upon the petitioner’s disclosure. The narcotics were reportedly sold, and the proceeds of Rs. 10 lakhs were deposited in the bank account of the petitioner’s wife, which has since been frozen. The petitioner is implicated under Sections 457, 380, 411, 120B of the IPC, Sections 8/20, 21, 29 of the NDPS Act, and Sections 7/25 of the Arms Act. He is described as a habitual offender, and a charge sheet has already been filed and is pending in the Fast Track Court, Kupwara. The petitioner’s plea for bail on humanitarian grounds, citing his wife’s illness, has not been supported by any documentary evidence. The Trial Court had earlier declined his release on such grounds. 3. The offences alleged against the petitioner are heinous in nature, carrying the possibility of life imprisonment. Although the petitioner’s main claim for bail is that his wife is suffering from an acute health condition requiring surgery, there is no information provided regarding the nature of her illness, nor is it claimed that he is the only male family member capable of attending to domestic needs. The petitioner had also sought permission from the Trial Court to attend the funeral of his father, who passed away on 08-02-2025; however, the Trial Court declined the request, and by the time the application could be considered, the funeral had already taken place. 4. In view of the above, and considering that the petitioner has remained unrepresented at the last two hearings, the petition has no merit. The documents accompanying the petition provide no substantive evidence to warrant humanitarian consideration, and the Trial Court’s reasoned order dated 29-06-2024 declining bail stands justified. 5. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. This order does not prevent the petitioner from filing a fresh plea on humanitarian grounds or otherwise. (SANJAY PARIHAR) JUDGE SRINAGAR: 12.12.2025 Akhil Dev