Haroon Rashid vs The Union Territory Of Jammu And Kashmir
2026 Latest Caselaw 286 J&K

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Haroon Rashid vs The Union Territory Of Jammu And Kashmir on 3 February, 2026

      HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                      AT JAMMU

                   (THROUGH VIRTUAL MODE)

                           Bail App 214/2025
                            CrlM 1402/2025

                                        Reserved On: 31st of January, 2026.
                                        Pronounced On: 3rd of February, 2026.
                                         Uploaded On: 3rd of February, 2026.

                                        Whether the operative part or
                                        full judgment is pronounced: Full.

       Haroon Rashid, Age 24 Years
       S/o Sh. Abdul Rashid
       R/o Ward No.02, Rajouri
       Tehsil & District Rajouri
       Through his mother
       Razia Begum, Age 55 years.
       W/o Sh. Abdul Rashid
       R/o Ward No.02, Rajouri,
       Tehsil & District, Rajouri.
                                                             ... Petitioner(s)
                             Through: -
                      Mr Jagpaul Singh, Advocate.
                                    V/s
      1. The Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir
         Through Station House Officer, Police Station,
         Rajouri, District Rajouri.

   2. The Superintendent, District Jail, Dhangri, Rajouri.
                                                        ... Respondents

Through: -

Mr Banu Jasrotia, Government Advocate. CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHAHZAD AZEEM, JUDGE

(JUDGMENT)

01. The petitioner who is facing trial, before the Court of learned

Special Judge NDPS Cases (Additional Sessions Judge) [the Trial Court] for

allegedly commission of offence under Section 8/21/22 of the NDPS Act and

now by virtue of instant petition has approached this Court seeking his

enlargement on bail mainly on the ground that the rigors of Section 37 of the

NDPS Act are not attracted to the present case and, therefore, the bail

application was required to be considered in terms of Section 437 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, however, while rejecting the bail application, the

Trial Court failed to take into consideration this important aspect of law.

Further contention of the petitioner is that since the charge-sheet has already

been filed and, as such, there remains no reason or justification to keep the

petitioner behind bars for an indefinite period, in that, the offences for which

the petitioner is facing trial are neither punishable with death nor with

imprisonment for life, but the same carries a maximum punishment of ten

years.

02. Mr. Jagpaul Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,

has also canvassed at the Bar, that the seriousness of the offence cannot be a

sole reason for rejection of a bail application, particularly when the

allegations are yet to be established, therefore, continuous incarceration of

the petitioner, in such circumstances, would amount to pre-trial punishment,

which is legally not tenable. The petitioner has further disputed the allegation

of his having continuous involvement in offences of similar nature, in that, it

is contended that nothing has been placed on record to demonstrate that he is

previously involved in commission of similar nature of offences. Finally, the

petitioner prayed for his enlargement on bail, keeping in view the right of

liberty as recognized under the Constitution of India.

03. On the other hand, the respondents have filed objections and,

while opposing the bail application after delineating the facts regarding

accusation against the petitioner, went onto submit that the petitioner is also

involved in various other criminal cases, particulars whereof are given as

under: -

S. No. 1 FIR No. 721/2018 U/S 8(a) 2/29 Police Staton NDPS Act Rajouri

S No.2 FIR No.468/2020 U/s 8(a) 2/29 Police Station NDPS Act Rajouri

S. No. 3 FIR No. 36/2022 U/s 8(a) 2/29 Police Station NDPS Act Rajouri

S. No. 4 FIR No. 468/2024 U/s 331 (1) 305 Police Station BNS Rajouri

S. No. 5 FIR No. 481/2024 U/s 126 (2) 115 Police Station (2) 307, 191 (2) Rajouri BNS .

04. According to the respondents, in all such cases, charge-sheets

have already been laid before the competent Court of law, however, the

accused continued to engage in grave criminal activities and of late has been

found in possession of six grams of heroin, which, according to the

respondents, demonstrates a blatant disregard for the stringent provisions of

the narcotics law and poses a serious threat to public safety.

05. Mr. Banu Jasrotia, learned Government Advocate appearing for

the respondents has vehemently argued that the repeated involvement of the

petitioner in serious crimes indicates a likelihood of his committing further

offences if released on bail, as he has a well-knit network in District Rajouri.

06. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered the rival

submissions, and perused the record.

07. Before coming to the merits of the bail petition, the facts in brief

are that the petitioner was apprehended on 26th of January, 2025, by the

Police Naka party while performing at Shema Crossing, DPL Crossing, and

ITI Road, Rajouri, at about 1500 Hours. Since, the petitioner, was stated to

be spotted by the police Naka party in a suspicious condition, who on sensing

the presence of the Naka duty party, when tried to escape from the spot, was

apprehended and on his personal search, six grams of heroin were recovered.

Accordingly, a formal FIR was registered and investigation was taken up.

Upon completion of the investigation, the complicity of the petitioner in the

commission of offence punishable under Sections 8/21/ 22 of the NDPS Act

was established. Accordingly, the charge-sheet was laid before the competent

court of jurisdiction and the same, as on date, is pending on the docket of the

learned Trial Court.

08. The Trial Court, while rejecting the bail application, mainly

proceeded on the premise that the petitioner is a habitual offender and thus

has demonstrated a blatant disregard to the orders of the Court. Accordingly,

held that granting bail in a similar matter again would tantamount to

condoning his conduct and granting him a license to indulge in further

criminal activities.

09. Though, in the case on hand, having regard to the nature of the

offence, there is no absolute statutory bar for grant of bail, nonetheless, the

NDPS Act is a special statute containing stringent provisions enacted with

the object to deter habitual offenders. Therefore, once it emerges from the

Trial Court record that the petitioner is involved in multiple FIRs, in that

event, prima-facie, it appears that one of the conditions of likelihood of

repeating the offence would surely stare at him and also stands as bar for

securing the concession of bail. It is also to be borne in mind that the trial is

already underway and, thus keeping in view the accusations against the

petitioner regarding his continuous involvement in a series of like cases, the

Trial Court would be in a better position to appreciate the conduct of the

petitioner, including his attendance, co-operation in the trial process, and any

10. I am fortified in my view by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court passed in "Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P and Anr", (AIR 2015 SC

3703), wherein it has been held that while considering the bail application, it

has to be borne in mind that as to whether there is likelihood of the offence

being repeated; as also the character, behaviour, antecedents, and standing of

the accused. In the said case, Hon'ble Supreme Court has authoritatively

held that while considering an application for grant of bail, the criminal

antecedents and activities of the accused cannot be ignored. In the said case,

the Supreme Court found that the accused was involved in a number of

serious criminal cases; however, the High Court, while granting bail, had

overlooked the fundamental principles governing the grant of bail.

Consequently, the order granting bail was set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court.

11. Now turning to the case on hand, as the prosecution story goes,

the petitioner is already facing as many as five FIRs involving offences of

a similar nature. Therefore, surely one of the considerations of likelihood of

the offence being repeated, comes in the way of the petitioner in seeking

enlargement on bail at this stage.

12. In view of the foregoing analysis, the stage of the trial, and also in

view of the larger interest of the society, this Court is of the considered

opinion that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail at this stage.

Accordingly, the instant bail petition is dismissed. However, with a liberty to

the petitioner to approach the Trial Court afresh by way of a bail application,

if so advised.

(SHAHZAD AZEEM) JUDGE

SRINAGAR February 3rd, 2026 "Showkat Khan"

i. Whether the Judgment is approved for reporting? Yes/ No.