97 Supplementary HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Bail App No. 122/2025 CrlM No. 917/2025 Union Territory through Police Station Chadoora ….. Petitioner (s) Through: Mr. Bikramdeep Singh, Dy. AG V/s Muzaffar Ahmad Dar ….. Respondent(s) Through: Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar, Judge ORDER 11.07.2025 1. The petitioner, has challenged order dated 06.05.2025 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Budgam whereby the respondent has been granted bail in case FIR No. 72/2025 for commission of offence under Section 8/20 of NDPS Act registered with Police Station, Chadoora. 2. As per the prosecution case, on 20.04.2025, the respondent/accused was nabbed by the police and upon his search 270 Grams of Charas was recovered from his possession. It seems that the respondent/accused approached the court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Budgam for grant of bail which P a g e | 2 Bail App No. 122/2025 CrlM No. 917/2025 was allowed by the said court in terms of impugned order dated 06.05.2025. 3. The petitioner/UT, has challenged the impugned order on the ground that the respondent/accused has committed a heinous non-bailable offence, as such, he did not deserve the concession of bail. It has been further contended that the learned Sessions Judge has not applied principles of law relating to the bail to the present case in an appropriate manner and that there was no justification for grant of bail in favour of the respondent/accused. Lastly, it has been contended that enlarging the respondent/accused on bail is going to affect the public interest inasmuch as the persons indulging in illicit trafficking of drugs would get encouraged which in turn would affect the health and wellbeing of the youth. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order passed by the learned trial court. 5. Admittedly, the quantity of contraband substance recovered from the possession of the respondent/accused falls in the category of intermediate quantity, therefore the conditions stipulated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted to the present case. The relief for grant of bail to the P a g e | 3 Bail App No. 122/2025 CrlM No. 917/2025 respondent/accused in these circumstances is discretionary in nature. Of course, the discretion has to be exercised by the Sessions court in light of well settled principles. 6. The learned trial court, while enlarging the respondent/accused on bail, has noted that the investigation of the case is almost complete and nothing further is required to be recovered from the respondent/accused. Thus, the learned Sessions Judge has exercised his discretion in a manner which is neither perverse nor illegal. Therefore, it is not open for this Court to substitute its own discretion to that of the learned Sessions Judge. 7. Apart from the above, it is not the case of the petitioner that the respondent/accused has either misused the concession of bail or violated any condition of bail. Therefore, there is no ground to withdraw the concession of bail granted by learned Sessions judge to the respondent. 8. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge SRINAGAR 11.07.2025 Aasif