Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Union Territory Through Police vs Ishrat Ahmad Mir on 20 February, 2026
Author: Rahul Bharti
Bench: Rahul Bharti
Serial No.06
REGULAR CAUSE LIST
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
Bail App 3/2025 CrlM(18/2025)
Union Territory Through Police ...Petitioner(s)
Station Baramulla
Through: Mr. Hakim Aman Ali, Dy. AG
Vs.
Ishrat Ahmad Mir ...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Tawheed Ahmad, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE
ORDER
20.02.2026
1. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, SHO Police Station Sopore Mr. Ayaz Rasool Geelani, is present in person.
2. This Court has registered its concern and annoyance with respect to the manner in which the bailable warrants for service of respondent came to be dealt with at the end of the Police Station, Sopore.
3. The SHO Police Station, Sopore has tendered his due apology with an assurance that there would not be a repeat of such like omission in future.
4. The personal presence of Mr. Ayaz Rasool Geelani, SHO Police Station, Sopore is dispensed with.
5. This Court has no hesitation in observing that Mr. Tawheed Ahmad, Advocate ought to have been vigilant in apprising this Court after having filed vakalatnama on 26.03.2025 on behalf of the respondent that he does not have any contact/instructions with/from the respondent's end to continue with his engagement as counsel in the present case, as had that been done, this Court would have been spared from the pain of going to the extent of issuing bailable warrants for the respondents and the summoning the SHO Police Station, Sopore.
6. This Court directs Registrar Judicial, Srinagar to pass on requisite instructions to all the concerned in the Registry that as and when any return of process from the process serving agency, be it of the Court and/or of the Police, takes place, then the return of process must bear proper reference to the officer submitting the process back upon service/non service with due mention of date, time and the manner of receipt of the return of the process, so as to ward off confusion of the nature as has occurred in the present case.
7. Mr. Tawheed Ahmad, Advocate submits that the instruction to appear on behalf of the respondent has been restored in his favour and, therefore, he would now be representing the respondent.
8. Let response to the petition be filed within a period of two weeks.
9. List again on 01.04.2026.
10. Send for the scanned record of the case titled "Union Territory of J&K Vs. Ishrat Ahmad Mir"
from the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sopore.
(RAHUL BHARTI) JUDGE SRINAGAR:
20.02.2026 "Mir Arif"