75 Supplementary IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CRM(M) 296/2026 CrlM(691/2026) UNION TERRITORY THROUGH POLICE STATION SUMBAL ….. Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Jahangeer Ahmad Dar, GA V/s PARVAIZ AHMAD BEIGH ….. Respondent(s) Through: Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar, Judge ORDER 12.05.2026 1. The petitioner, has challenged order dated 12.03.2026, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bandipora at Sumbal, whereby application of the respondent for grant of bail in case arising out of FIR No. 257/2025 of Police Station, Sumbal for offence under Section 8/20 of the NDPS Act, has been allowed and the respondent has been admitted to bail. 2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the grounds that the respondent was involved in another FIR bearing No. 14/2021 and as such, he had a criminal antecedent but this aspect of the matter had not been taken into account by the learned trial court. It has also been P a g e | 2 CRM(M) 296/2026 CrlM(691/2026 contended that the respondent is a habitual offender involved in narcotic offences as such, he could not have been granted bail. 3. Heard and considered. 4. It is not in dispute that the respondent was allegedly found to be in possession of intermediate quantity of contraband substance namely “Ganja. It is also not in dispute that the statutory embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not attracted to the case. In these circumstances, the grant or refusal of the bail to the accused is entirely within the discretion of the court. Of course, the discretion has to be exercised by the court in accordance with settled legal principles enunciated by the Supreme Court and this Court in its various judgments delivered from time to time. These principles include the factors like stage of investigation, potential of the accused to tamper with the prosecution witnesses, gravity of offence and likelihood of accused absconding after being enlarged on bail and similar other factors. 5. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge would reveal that all the aforesaid factors have been taken into consideration by the said court P a g e | 3 CRM(M) 296/2026 CrlM(691/2026 while enlarging the respondent on bail. In these circumstances, the discretion exercised by the learned trial court in allowing the bail application of the respondent can neither be termed as arbitrary nor can it be said that the discretion has been exercised on the basis of material which is extraneous to the case. 6. In view of the above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge SRINAGAR 12.05.2026 Aasif