Union Territory Through Police Station ... vs Hilal Ahmad Tiploo
2026 Latest Caselaw 2149 J&K/2

Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench

Union Territory Through Police Station ... vs Hilal Ahmad Tiploo on 8 April, 2026

Author: Sanjay Dhar

Bench: Sanjay Dhar

                                                       10
                                                       Regular

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                     AT SRINAGAR

                         Bail App 203/2025

UNION TERRITORY THROUGH POLICE STATION SOURA
                                               .....Petitioner
                     Through:     Ms. Maha Majid, Adv.
                                  vice Mr. Mohsin Qadiri, Sr. AAG.

                  V/s
HILAL AHMAD TIPLOO
                                            ..... Respondent(s)
                     Through:     Mr. Mueed ul Islam, Advocate.
Coram:
          Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar, Judge

                              ORDER

08.04.2026

1. The petitioner, through the medium of present petition, has

challenged order dated 14.07.2025 passed by the learned

Special Judge NDPS, Srinagar (hereinafter referred to as

Special Judge) whereby the respondent has been enlarged on

bail in a case arising out of FIR No. 85/2024 for offences

under Sections 8/20, 21, 22 of NDPS Act registered by Police

Station, Soura Srinagar.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. It appears that the petitioner is facing trial before the Special

Judge in the aforesaid case. It is case of the prosecution that

the petitioner was found to be in possession of the 14 grams of Page |2

Charas, 1 gram of Brown Sugar and 20 tablets of Spasmo

Proxyon Plus. The quantity of Charas and Brown Sugar

recovered from the possession of the petitioner falls in the

Category of small quantity while as quantity of Spasmo

Proxyon Plus recovered from the possession of the petitioner

falls under intermediate quantity. Thus, the provisions of

Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted to the facts of

the present case. The grant of bail to the petitioner in these

circumstances entirely lies within the discretion of the

concerned court. However, the said discretion has to be

exercised in accordance with well recognized principles laid

down by legal precedents from time to time.

4. It is not in dispute that the investigation of the case has

already been completed and the charge sheet has been filed

against the respondent. The only ground on which the

petitioner has sought cancellation of bail of the respondent is

that he is involved in multiple FIRs of similar nature. This

aspect of the matter has been noted by the learned Special

Judge in para (43) of the impugned order. While dealing with

said contention it has been noted by the learned Special Judge

that mere registration of case without there being any

conviction recorded against the accused cannot be sole ground Page |3

for denying bail to him particularly when rigour of Section 37

of the Act is applicable to the case. The said observation of

the learned Special Judge cannot be termed as perverse or

contrary to the legal position. It is to be noted that in all the

FIRs, of which reference has been made in the petition, the

respondent has been granted bail by the concerned court. It

also seems that the respondent is a victim of drug trafficking

rather than a person indulging in drug trafficking, which fact

has been noted by the learned Special Judge, while passing

impugned order.

5. In view of what has been discussed hereinbefore and in

absence of any allegation that the respondent has violated any

condition of bail, I do not find any merit in the present

petition. The same is dismissed.

(Sanjay Dhar) Judge

SRINAGAR 08.04.2026 Aasif