JAMMU, OCTOBER 08: The Prosecution Department, J&K, today commended its Public Prosecutors, whose firm and well-reasoned opposition resulted in the rejection of three bail applications on 6 and 7 October 2026: two under the NDPS Act and one in murder case.
On 6 October 2026, the Special Judge (NDPS Cases), Jammu, Parvaiz Iqbal, rejected two bail applications. First, in UT of J&K vs Vishal Kumar & Ors. (FIR No. 295/2025, PS Bahu Fort), the Special Public Prosecutor Sunil Kumar raised detailed objections, underscored the alleged sale of narcotics to young people. The prosecution placed on record the recovery of 275 grams of heroin from a co-accused and a further 55 grams, cash and a weighing machine from the residence of applicant Reena on her disclosure, besides multiple earlier FIRS. The Court held that she failed to overcome the rigour of Section 37 NDPS Act.
In another matter, Salman Khan v. UT of J&K (FIR No. 172/2022, PS Gandhi Nagar), the Special Public Prosecutor Sunil Kumar, vehemently opposed bail, stressing the commercial quantity involved, the risk of re-offending and the seriousness of the offence. The prosecution relied on a financial trail of 35 transactions totaling Rs 1,32,514 between 17.05.2026 and 10.07.2026, the recovery of 267.92 grams of heroin from a co-accused and two earlier NDPS cases. The Court rejected the application, holding it barred by Section 37 NDPS Act.
On 7 October 2026, the Principal Sessions Judge, Budgam O.P. Bhagat, dismissed the bail application of Aqib Majeed Rather in FIR No. 143/2023 of Police Station Beerwah, registered under Sections 302 and 506 IPC. Appearing for the UT, Public Prosecutor Suhaib Ashraf filed detailed objections and argued that neither the filing of the charge-sheet nor the examination of nine witnesses entitle an accused to bail, as material witnesses were yet to be examined and the value of testimony must be assessed after appreciation of the entire evidence. He also highlighted the reasonable apprehension of witness interference and the bar under Section 437(1) CrPC. The Court found no reasonable grounds for believing that the accused had not committed the offence and declined to exercise its discretion.
The Department said that these outcomes reflect the dedication of its Public Prosecutors, who combine thorough case preparation, command of statutory provisions and binding Supreme Court precedents with a clear sense of public duty.
The Prosecution Department reaffirmed its commitment to strong, ethical and professional prosecution in every case.
