Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

17.The interim order dated 15.10.2025 passed on this petition is vacated.

18.Disposed of.

1. Through the medium of the instant application filed in terms of provisions of Section 483 of the BNSS, bail on behalf of the petitioner/Accused in case FIR No. 119/2022 under Sections 8/15, 29 of NDPS Act of Police Station, Kulgam has been sought on the merits of the case as well as on humanitarian grounds. It has been inter-alia pleaded in the application that he has been facing detention in the case FIR as an under trial since 04.03.2025. That the final report/chargesheet in the case FIR came to be filed against him in his absence, with the initiation of proceedings in terms of provisions of Section 299 of the Code against him. That subsequently, upon his surrender at the trial of the case, he admitted the evidence of 8 Bail App 13/2026 c/w CRM(M) 640/2025 prosecution witnesses 1 to 10 who had already been examined in the case by the prosecution, as he felt no necessity for cross-examining the said already examined witnesses who had already been appropriately cross-examined by the learned counsel for the co- accused. That he filed a formal application in that behalf. That simultaneously, the prosecution also filed an application before the trial court seeking recalling of the already examined witnesses to his extent. That both the applications filed by him as well as the prosecution were resisted by each other, and the learned trial court disposed of both the applications through a common order dated 17.09.2025, while rejecting his application and allowing the application of the prosecution.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, who reiterated their stands taken in the application and the memo of objections, respectively.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner/Accused is entitled to be admitted to bail in the case both 11 Bail App 13/2026 c/w CRM(M) 640/2025 on the merits as well as on humanitarian grounds. That none of the prosecution witnesses already examined and whose evidence has been admitted by the petitioner, have not incriminated the petitioner, which is the reason for the prosecution who intends to seek the recalling of the witnesses to improve their case.

5. He further contended that, without prejudice to his right to get bail on merits, he is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on exclusive humanitarian grounds, as he is a documented case of Hypertension (HTN) and Dilated Cardiomyopathy (DCM) with a history of syncope. That his current Ejection Fraction (EF) is 20%, indicating severe cardiac dysfunction. That he has been advised to undergo implantation of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy with Defibrillator (CRT-D).

15 Bail App 13/2026 c/w CRM(M) 640/2025

12.In "Jasvinder Singh Vs State of J&K" B.A No: 156/2019 decided on 12.04.2021 bail on humanitarian grounds (medical grounds) was granted by this Court to an accused who was suffering from diabetes, which had substantially affected his eye sight as per the medical records brought to the notice of the Court. It was authoritatively held in the case that the Sec 37 of the NDPS Act only prescribes the limitations on the release of a person on bail. That the powers to grant bail stand vested with the High Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That Section 37 of the NDPS Act, comes into play only when bail of a person/accused of an offence involving commercial quantity of a contraband is being considered on merits and the limitations contained therein would not apply when bail is to be granted on humanitarian grounds like medical ground. In such cases the powers of the High Court U/s 439 of the Cr.P.C are not curtailed. Thus the provisions contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not act as a blanket ban on the powers of the High Court U/s 439 of the Cr.P.C.