Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jammu and Kashmir · body

2026 DAILYLAW 1486 (JK)

ARSHID AHMAD LONE AND OTHERS v. UNION TERRITORY THROUGH POLICE STATION KAKAPORA (POLICE / HOME)

Bail App/100/2026 · 2026-06-03

Sanjay Dhar

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Bail App No.100/2026 1 | P a g e S. No.147 Suppl.List 3 ,,,IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Bail App.No.100/2026 \ Arshad Ahmad Lone and Ors …..Petitioner(s) Through: Mr.Aasif Wani, Advocate V/s UT of J&K through SHO P/S Kakapora … ..Respondent(s) Through: None CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER 03.06.2026 1. The petitioners through the medium of present petition are seeking bail in anticipation of their arrest in FIR No.46 of 2026 for offences under Sections 74, 109,115(2), 351(2), 304(2) of BNS registered with Police Station Kakpora. It appears that the petitioners have approached the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Pulwama with a prayer for grant of anticipatory bail in the same FIR and the said application is still pending. In the said application learned Sessions Judge while issuing notice to the respondent has passed an interim ex-parte direction protecting the petitioners from arrest. However, it has been Bail App No.100/2026 2 | P a g e provided in the order that the said protection would not apply to offences carrying punishment for more than seven years and certain other offences under Special Acts. Without waiting for reply from the respondents and the decision of the bail application by the learned Sessions Judge, the petitioners have rushed to this Court and filed the present petition. 2. The Supreme Court in the case of Jagdeo Prasad vs The State of Bihar and Ors, 2025 Live Law (SC) 965 has cautioned the High Courts against directly entertaining anticipatory bail applications and has stressed that the litigants should ordinarily be directed to first approach the Sessions Court before invoking the High Court’s concurrent jurisdiction. 3. In the present case, the petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court and without exhausting the said remedy they have rushed to this Court. Hence the present bail application is not maintainable. The same is, accordingly, dismissed with leave and liberty to the petitioners to pursue their application which is pending before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Pulwama. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE SRINAGAR 03.06.2026 Sarveeda Nissar 1. Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No Sarveeda Nissar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document every page at bottom left side 04.06.2026 17:57