06 Regular IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Bail App 56/2026 CrlM(443/2026) UNION TERRITORY THROUGH POLICE STATION PULWAMA ….. Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Furqaan Yaqoob, GA V/s MUKHTAR AHMAD MALIK ….. Respondent(s) Through: Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar, Judge ORDER 15.04.2026 1. The petitioner, has challenged order dated 28.04.2025, passed by the Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Pulwama whereby the respondent has been granted bail in a case arising out of FIR No. 325 for the offences under Section 8,22 and 29 of NDPS of Police Station, Pulwama. 2. As per the prosecution case on 10.11.2022, the police of Police Station, Pulwama laid a naka at Village Babgund, Pulwama. Vehicle bearing registration No. DL3CBQ- 4882 was intercepted by the Police on the said naka and upon conducting search, 06 injections of Diazepam were P a g e | 2 Bail App 56/2026 CrlM(443/2026 recovered from the possession of the respondent/accused (Mukhtair Ahmad Malik) who was travelling in the said vehicle as its driver. Besides this, cash of Rs. 9200/- was also recovered from his possession. From other co-accused viz Haris Nazir Malik, 04 injections of Diazepam were recovered. 3. The Police seized the recovered contraband drugs as also the vehicle whereafter the samples were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Srinagar for analysis. After investigation of the case, challan came to be filed against the respondent and co-accused before the learned Special Judge. During the trial of the case, the learned Special Judge has, vide order dated 28.04.2025, granted bail to the accused including the respondent herein. 4. The petitioner/Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir has challenged the impugned order on the grounds that the learned Special Judge has not appreciated the material on record. It has been further contended that the statements of three prosecution witnesses are yet to be recorded and as such, grant of bail to the respondent P a g e | 3 Bail App 56/2026 CrlM(443/2026 would seriously prejudice case of the prosecution. It has been contended that the respondent has committed grave offence and it has an adverse impact on the society at large which aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned Special Judge. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 6. A perusal of the record reveals that intermediate quantity of contraband drug has been recovered from the possession of the respondent. It is also revealed that most of the prosecution witnesses have been examined by the learned Special Judge. It is a settled position of law that rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is attracted only to those cases where the quantity of contraband drug recovered falls within the parameters of the commercial quantity. So far as the principles for grant of bail in cases where rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not attracted, the same are well settled inasmuch as the court has to exercise its discretion to grant or refuse bail by taking into account the factors such as likelihood of the P a g e | 4 Bail App 56/2026 CrlM(443/2026 accused being available to face the trial, his conduct during the trial/investigation, the gravity of offence, the propensity of the accused to tamper with the prosecution witnesses or his potential to thwart the course of justice. It is also well settled principle of law that the High Court while exercising its inherent power should not ordinarily interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial court in the matters relating to grant of bail unless there are compelling circumstances to do so. 7. In the present case, the trial of the case is almost at its last stage, inasmuch as only three prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined. There is nothing on record to show that the respondent has the potential of thwarting the course of justice or that his conduct during the trial court has not been up to the mark. The learned Special Judge while granting bail to the petitioner has considered all the relevant aspects of the matter and there is no perversity in the order passed by the learned Special Judge. The impugned order, therefore calls for no interference. P a g e | 5 Bail App 56/2026 CrlM(443/2026 8. For the foregoing reasons I do not find any merit in this petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge SRINAGAR 15.04.2026 Aasif Whether the order is speaking Yes/No Whether the order is reportable Yes/No