Sr. No. 120 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR (through virtual Mode) CRM(M) No. 334/2026 UT of J & K …. Appellant(s) Through:- Mr. Faheem Nisar Shah, Advocate. V/s Faisal Ahmad Shah …..Respondent(s) Through:- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER 20.05.2026. 1. The petitioner has challenged order dated 31.03.2026 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bandipora, whereby application of the respondent seeking bail in a case arising out of FIR No. 274/2025 registered with Police Station, Bandipora alleging commission of offences under Section 8/22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act has been accepted and the respondent has been released on bail. 2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge on the ground that the learned Judge has not applied his mind while passing the impugned order. It has been further submitted that the respondent is a habitual offender and, as such, the Court below ought not have granted bail in his favour. It has further been submitted that offences with which the respondent has been charged, have 2 CRM(M) No. 334/2026 serious societal ramifications and granting bail to the respondent would encourage the elements having similar bent of mind. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 5. It is not in dispute that quantity of contraband recovered from the possession of the respondent falls within the parameters of intermediate quantity. Therefore, rigors of Section 37 of NDPS are not attracted to the present case. In these circumstances, grant of bail to the respondent was with the discretion of the learned trial Court. The said discretion was required to be exercised on parameters laid down by various judicial precedents of the Supreme Court and this Court as in any other non- bailable offence. These parameters include the factors like stage of investigation, capacity of the accused to tamper with the prosecution witnesses, the gravity of the offence, the public interest and similar other considerations. 6. If we have a look at the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, it is clear that all the aforesaid factors have been taken into account by the learned Judge while passing the impugned order. It has been noted in the impugned order that investigation of the case is complete and charge-sheet has been filed before the Court. It has also been noted by learned Additional Sessions Judge that there is nothing on record to show that the respondent is likely to commit a similar offence or that he has potential to tamper with the prosecution witnesses. It is to be noted that the contention that the respondent is a repeated offender was not raised by the petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge. 3 CRM(M) No. 334/2026 7. In view of the above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the well reasoned order of bail passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bandipora. 8. The petition lacks merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge JAMMU 20.05.2026 NEHA-1 Neha Kumari 2026.05.20 15:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document