30 Regular IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Bail App No. 144/2024 UT of J&K through Police Station Mattan ….. Petitioner (s) Through: Mr. Illyas Laway, GA V/s Muzaffar Ahmad Khan and anr. ….. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Sameer Qayoom, Adv. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar, Judge ORDER 03.11.2025 1. The petitioner, through the medium of present petition has challenged order dated 04.03.2024 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Anantnag whereby the respondents have been admitted on bail in a case arising out of FIR No. 22/2022 of Police Station Mattan for offences under Section 8/20-29 of NDPS Act. 2. Heard and considered. 3. The main ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner for impugning the order granting bail to the P a g e | 2 Bail App No. 144/2024 respondents is, that the same is cryptic in nature and it does not assign any reason. It has been submitted that the respondents were booked in an offence involving possession of commercial quantity of contraband substance as such, it was obligatory upon the learned Sessions Judge to assign reasons as to why embargo contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not attracted to the case at hand. 4. A perusal of the impugned order would reveal that the learned Sessions Judge has recorded that out of 12 listed witnesses, 10 witnesses have been examined. It has further been recorded by the learned Sessions Judge that from a perusal of the entire evidence he is of the opinion that at this stage, accused deserves to be admitted to bail. No discussion or reasons have been recorded by the learned Sessions Judge for coming to the conclusion that the respondents/accused deserve to be enlarged on bail. This Court is conscious of the legal position that at the time of considering the plea of bail, it is not open to the court to meticulously examine and analyze the evidence led by the P a g e | 3 Bail App No. 144/2024 prosecution but at the same time, the order granting bail should at least record a prima facie opinion about the existence of ground for grant of bail particularly in a case where an embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is attracted. The Court in such case has to record a satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of an offence involving possession of commercial quantity of contraband substance. In the instant case, no such exercise has been undertaken by the learned Sessions Judge as such, the order impugned is rendered unsustainable in the eyes of law. 5. In view of the above, while setting aside the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, the case is remanded to the said court with a direction to pass a fresh order after hearing the parties and after assigning the reasons in support of the view that may be taken by the learned Sessions Judge. 6. Having regard to the fact that nothing has been brought before this Court to show that the respondents have, during the pendency of this petition, violated any of the P a g e | 4 Bail App No. 144/2024 conditions of bail, the respondents shall continue to be on interim bail subject to conditions mentioned in the impugned order till such time, a fresh order is passed by the trial court. 7. Copy of this order be sent to the learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Anantnag for information and compliance. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge SRINAGAR 03.11.2025 Aasif