SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh has restored bail to an accused in a narcotics case, ruling that a trial court cannot recall a bail order in the absence of any misuse of liberty or supervening circumstances.
Justice Sanjay Parihar passed the order on May 22, 2026, while allowing a petition 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 had initially been granted regular bail by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar, on May 14, 2024. However, the prosecution later sought cancellation of bail, arguing that Section 27-A of the NDPS Act, dealing with financing illicit trafficking, was attracted in the case. Acting on the plea, the trial court recalled the bail order on July 3, 2024.
Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Aswad R. Attar argued that no contraband had been recovered from his client and that the allegations relating to Section 27-A were unsupported by evidence. He relied on the Supreme Court judgment in State of West Bengal versus Rakesh Singh to contend that the quantity recovered in the case was not commercial and that the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act were not attracted.
Opposing the petition, assisting counsel Haaris Khan, appearing for Senior AAG Mohsin Qadiri, submitted that the investigation had revealed suspicious bank transactions worth over Rs 2.14 lakh and statements suggesting the petitioner supplied heroin to drug addicts. The prosecution argued that these materials justified invocation of Section 27-A and cancellation of bail.
The High Court, however, observed that the allegations regarding bank transactions and witness statements were already available before the trial court when bail was initially granted. The court held that no fresh material or allegation of misuse of liberty had surfaced thereafter.
“It is a settled principle of law that rejection of bail and cancellation of bail stand on different footings,” the court said, adding that cancellation requires “cogent and overwhelming circumstances such as misuse of liberty, interference with the course of justice, tampering with evidence, intimidation of witnesses, likelihood of absconding, or other supervening events.”
The court further observed that “the subsequent order recalling the earlier bail order effectively amounts to a review of the merits of the grant of bail rather than a cancellation founded upon legally recognised grounds.”
While noting that the allegations against the petitioner were serious and would be tested during trial, the High Court set aside the July 3, 2024 order and directed that the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and surety of Rs one lakh, subject to conditions.
