Sr. No.22 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU Case: Crl A(D) No. 22/2024 Union Territory of Jammu and KashmirThrough Police Station JIC (SIA) Jammu …Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through: Ms. Monika Kohli. Sr. AAG v/s Mohd. Sharief Shah @Shariefuddin and ors. …. Respondent(s) Through: Mr.AkeelWani, Advocate for respondent no.1 Mr. M K Bhardwaj, Sr. Advocate with Mr. GaganKohli, Advocate for respondent no.2 Ms. Shamima Jan, Advocate for respondent no.3 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE ORDER 25.02.2025 (ORAL) (ATUL SREEDHARAN-J) Crl M No. 1507/2024 01. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 02. There is a delay of in filing the appeal, and therefore,this application by Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir seeking condonation ofdelay. 03. The application for the reasons stated therein and also for the reason that the respondents have not opposed it, is allowed and delay in filing the appealis condoned. -2- 04. Application is ‘disposed of’. Crl A(D) No. 22/2024 05. The present appeal has been preferred by the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir which is aggrieved by order dated 07.06.2024 passed in Case No. Bail/2111/2024passed by the Court of 3rd Additional Sessions Judge Jammu (Spl. Judge under Section 22 of NIA Act) in case FIR No. 73/2022 of Police Station JIC(SIA) Jammu for commission of offences made punishable under Sections 13/16/17/18/20/21/38/39 & 40 of the UA (P) Act and Sections 201 and 120-B of the IPC. 06. The learned Court below by succinct order recording those facts which were essential to decide the bail application has recorded the fact that the embargoof Section 43-D(5) UA(P) is also not attracted in the present case. as the offences which has been charged and being tried of is under Section 13 (1) (b) of the UA(P) Act for which the maximum sentence is seven years. The applicants have already completed a little more than two years as under trials and the trial is still not concluded. Without delving much into the facts learned Court below has fully appreciated the period of incarceration endured by the respondents as under trials and thereafter granted them bail. 07. It is not disputed by the learned Senior Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellantthat the embargoof Section43 (D)(5)of the UA(P) Act will not apply in this case and she has also not disputed the fact that the maximum sentence -3- that can be imposed upon the respondents is of seven years and she has also admitted the fact that the respondents have been in custody for a little more over two years. Learned Senior Additional Advocate General has with great vehemence and persuasive skills, requested the Court to cancel the bail granted by the learned Court below. 08. However, the plea notwithstanding this Court does not find any compelling reasons to interfere with the order granting bail passed by the learned Court below. 09. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. (RAJESH SEKHRI) (ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE JUDGE Jammu 25.02.2025 Sunita/PS SUNITA KOUL 2025.02.28 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document