Union Territory Through Police vs Ishrat Ahmad Mir
2026 Latest Caselaw 997 J&K/2

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"