10 Regular IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Bail App 203/2025 UNION TERRITORY THROUGH POLICE STATION SOURA …..Petitioner Through: Ms. Maha Majid, Adv. vice Mr. Mohsin Qadiri, Sr. AAG. V/s HILAL AHMAD TIPLOO ….. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Mueed ul Islam, Advocate. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar, Judge ORDER 08.04.2026 1. The petitioner, through the medium of present petition, has challenged order dated 14.07.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge NDPS, Srinagar (hereinafter referred to as Special Judge) whereby the respondent has been enlarged on bail in a case arising out of FIR No. 85/2024 for offences under Sections 8/20, 21, 22 of NDPS Act registered by Police Station, Soura Srinagar. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. It appears that the petitioner is facing trial before the Special Judge in the aforesaid case. It is case of the prosecution that the petitioner was found to be in possession of the 14 grams of P a g e | 2 Bail App 203/2025 Charas, 1 gram of Brown Sugar and 20 tablets of Spasmo Proxyon Plus. The quantity of Charas and Brown Sugar recovered from the possession of the petitioner falls in the Category of small quantity while as quantity of Spasmo Proxyon Plus recovered from the possession of the petitioner falls under intermediate quantity. Thus, the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted to the facts of the present case. The grant of bail to the petitioner in these circumstances entirely lies within the discretion of the concerned court. However, the said discretion has to be exercised in accordance with well recognized principles laid down by legal precedents from time to time. 4. It is not in dispute that the investigation of the case has already been completed and the charge sheet has been filed against the respondent. The only ground on which the petitioner has sought cancellation of bail of the respondent is that he is involved in multiple FIRs of similar nature. This aspect of the matter has been noted by the learned Special Judge in para (43) of the impugned order. While dealing with said contention it has been noted by the learned Special Judge that mere registration of case without there being any conviction recorded against the accused cannot be sole ground P a g e | 3 Bail App 203/2025 for denying bail to him particularly when rigour of Section 37 of the Act is applicable to the case. The said observation of the learned Special Judge cannot be termed as perverse or contrary to the legal position. It is to be noted that in all the FIRs, of which reference has been made in the petition, the respondent has been granted bail by the concerned court. It also seems that the respondent is a victim of drug trafficking rather than a person indulging in drug trafficking, which fact has been noted by the learned Special Judge, while passing impugned order. 5. In view of what has been discussed hereinbefore and in absence of any allegation that the respondent has violated any condition of bail, I do not find any merit in the present petition. The same is dismissed. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge SRINAGAR 08.04.2026 Aasif