SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar has restored bail to an accused booked under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, holding that cancellation of bail requires “cogent and overwhelming circumstances” such as misuse of liberty, tampering with evidence or interference with trial proceedings.
Justice Sanjay Parihar passed the order on May 22, 2026, while allowing a bail application filed by Kamran Mushtaq Lone, who is facing trial in FIR No. 10/2024 registered at Police Station Parimpora under Sections 8/21 and 27-A of the NDPS Act.
The petitioner was represented by advocate Aswad R. Attar, while the Union Territory was represented by assisting counsel Haaris Khan, appearing for Senior Additional Advocate General Mohsin Qadiri.
According to the case record, the accused had initially been denied bail by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar, on the ground that offences under Section 27-A of the NDPS Act — dealing with financing illicit trafficking and harbouring offenders — were allegedly attracted in the case. Subsequently, after the filing of the charge-sheet and framing of charges, the trial court granted him short-term bail on April 26, 2024 and regular bail on May 14, 2024.
However, the prosecution later sought cancellation of bail, arguing that Section 27-A of the NDPS Act had been made out against the accused and that the rigours of Section 37 of the Act barred the grant of bail. Acting on the application, the trial court recalled its earlier order and cancelled the bail on July 3, 2024.
Challenging the cancellation order before the High Court, the petitioner argued that no contraband had been recovered from his possession and that the prosecution material did not disclose ingredients necessary to invoke Section 27-A of the NDPS Act. It was also submitted that no supervening circumstance had arisen after grant of bail which could justify cancellation of the concession already granted.
The prosecution opposed the plea, stating that during investigation it surfaced that co-accused Irshad Ahmad Mir, allegedly a drug addict, had arranged money for purchasing heroin by selling his wife’s gold ornaments and that the petitioner was allegedly involved in supplying narcotic substances. The prosecution further claimed that suspicious bank transactions amounting to over Rs 2.14 lakh indicated proceeds from illicit narcotics trafficking.
During arguments, the petitioner relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in State of West Bengal vs Rakesh Singh (2022) to contend that the quantity allegedly recovered in the case was not commercial in nature and that Section 27-A could not be invoked merely on the basis of monetary transactions.
After hearing both sides, Justice Parihar observed that no contraband had been recovered from the petitioner and that the allegations regarding bank transactions and witness statements were already before the trial court at the time regular bail had originally been granted.
The High Court held that there was no allegation that the accused had violated bail conditions, influenced witnesses, tampered with evidence or absconded after being enlarged on bail.
Distinguishing between rejection of bail and cancellation of bail, the Court reiterated that cancellation of bail requires legally recognised grounds and cannot be used as a mechanism to review an earlier judicial order.
The Court referred to the Supreme Court rulings in Dolat Ram vs State of Haryana (1995) and X vs State of Telangana (2018), which lay down that cancellation of bail can only be justified on the basis of misuse of liberty or other supervening circumstances.
The High Court further observed that the expression “financing illicit traffic” under Section 27-A of the NDPS Act has a specific legal meaning and cannot be attracted merely because money transactions are alleged.
“Mere receipt of money, absent further material indicating that such funds were utilised for financing or facilitating illicit trafficking, may not, by itself, satisfy the statutory requirements of Section 27-A,” the Court observed.
Holding that the trial court had effectively reviewed its own earlier bail order without fresh material, the High Court set aside the July 3, 2024 order cancelling bail and directed that the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and surety of Rs one lakh.
The Court imposed conditions requiring the accused to appear before the trial court on every hearing date, refrain from influencing witnesses, and not leave the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir without prior permission of the court.
