S. No. 18 Regular list IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CrlA(D) 54/2024 CrlM(1127/2024 UNION TERRITORY THROUGH POLICE STATION BARAMULLA (HOME) (NIA) …Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Sr. AAG with Ms. Maha Majeed, Assisting Counsel. Vs. IRFAN AHMAD WANI ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Raja Jaffer Nazir, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE O R D E R 15.07.2025 (Oral): 1. Impugned in this appeal, filed by the Union Territory of J&K under Section 21 (4) of the NIA Act, is an order dated 23rd March 2024 passed by the Learned Special Judge (Designated Court under NIA) in case FIR No. 81/2020 under Section 23 and 38 ULA (P) Act, 7/25 Arms Act registered at Police Station Baramulla whereby the court below has granted bail to the respondent. 2. The impugned order is assailed by the appellant primarily on the ground that the learned trial Court has not kept in mind the rigors of Section 43(D) of the UA(P) Act which clearly provides that bail in such matters should not be granted unless the prosecution is provided an opportunity of hearing and the case against the accused is found prima facie not true. 3. It has also been brought to our notice by both sides that out of total 13 prosecution witnesses listed in the Challan, 11 witnesses have already been examined and only one prosecution witness and the Investigating Officer are left to be examined. 4. In view of the aforesaid position, the trial against the respondent is on the verge of completion and all the important witnesses have already been examined. The respondent had already undergone more than four years in incarceration and, therefore, it would not be appropriate at this stage to interfere with the order of grant of bail, more particularly, when the case is likely to be concluded in the near future. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances narrated above, we are not inclined to interfere with the order impugned, passed by the court below. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed and the order of the court below is upheld. (SANJAY PARIHAR) (SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE SRINAGAR 15.07.2025 “Hilal” Whether the order is speaking/reportable? Yes/No.