Sr. No. 4 Regular Cause List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CrlA (D) No. 25/2023 UT Of J&K Th. SHO P/S Magam …Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through: Ms.Maha Majid, AC with Ms Naubhar, AC Vs. Muzaffar Ahmad Dar & Ors. ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Wajid Haseeb, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE O R D E R 26.11.2025 1. Impugned in this appeal filed by the Union Territory of J&K through SHO Police Station Magam under Section 21(4) of NIA Act is an order dated 08.12.2022 passed by learned Sessions Judge (Designated Court under NIA), Srinagar [“ the Trial Court”] in case FIR No. 82/2020 for the commission of offences under Sections 20,23, 39 UAP Act and 7/25 Indian Arms Act of Police Station Magam District Budgam, whereby the Trial Court has granted bail to four accused persons who are respondents herein. 2. The impugned order granting bail has been challenged by the appellant on multiple grounds. However, it has been brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the appellant that out of 13 cited witnesses in the challan, 10 witnesses have already been examined. It is further submitted that only three witnesses, including Investigation Officer (IO) of the case, are yet to be examined and the two witnesses other than the Investigation Officer (IO) are only formal witnesses and are not going to make much change. 3. Be that at it may, the trial of the case is now near finalization. The respondents are already on bail since 08.12.2022, and, there are no allegations by the appellant that they have in any manner violated the terms and conditions of the bail or have acted in any manner disentitling them from the concession of bail. 4. Since most of the witnesses, particularly the material witnesses have already been examined, the trial may not take much time to conclude, as such, it would not be appropriate at this stage to withdraw the concession of bail and put the respondents in jail. 5. We have also gone through the impugned order passed by the Trial Court and do not find any apparent illegality or infirmity therein. 6. For all these reasons, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (SANJAY PARIHAR) (SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE SRINAGAR: 26.11.2025 “S.Nuzhat”