Disposed

Ghulam Mohammad Mir v. Union Territory through Police Station Sumbal (Home Department)

J&K HC13 Nov 2020Bail App/58/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir disposed of a bail application petition filed on medical grounds. A medical board report concluded the accused did not require surgery. The court refused to grant bail or require chargesheet pending medical fitness but directed the accused to approach the competent jurisdiction for regular bail.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed the bail applications and granted liberty to approach the court of competent jurisdiction for regular bail.

Ghulam Mohammad Mir Vs Union Territory through Police Station… — Narcotics (NDPS) | J&K HC (2020)

¶1

Serial No.201 Supplementary-1 List

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR

¶3

(Through Virtual Mode)

¶4

BA No. 58/2020 CrlM No.754/2020

¶5

Ghulam Mohammad Mir

¶6

….. Petitioner(s)

¶7

Through: - Mr M. S. Reshi, Advocate.

¶8

V/s

¶9

Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir

¶10

….. Respondent(s)

¶11

Through: - Mr B. A. Dar, Sr. AAG Mr Sheikh Feroz Ahmad, Dy. AG.

¶12

CORAM:

¶13

Hon’ble Mr Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey, Judge.

¶14

(ORDER)

¶15

13.11.2020

¶16

The applicant, namely, Ghulam Mohammad Mir S/o Mohammad

¶17

Subhan Mir R/o Shilvat, Sumbal, Bandipora, accused in case bearing FIR No. No.04/2020 registered by Police Station, Sumbal, Bandipora, for the commission of offence(s) punishable under Section 8/22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1985”), during the pendency of the trial of the aforesaid case before the Court of competent jurisdiction, approached the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Bandipora, for seeking his release on bail on medical grounds in view of his deteriorating health condition and, in terms of order dated 17^th of June, 2020, the learned Sessions Court admitted the applicant-accused to bail with a further stipulation that the he shall surrender back on 29^th of June,

¶18

Page 2 of 5

¶19

BA No. 58/2020 CrlM No. 754/2020

¶20

Thereafter, this interim bail was extended from time to time by the Court below, however, on 10^th of July, 2017, since the Court below held that the applicant-accused will not be granted any further extension in bail, as such, the applicant-accused approached this Court through the medium of petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, being BA No. 58/2020, seeking extension in bail already granted to him by the Court below. When the said bail application came up for consideration before this Court on the very motion hearing, i.e., on 24^th of July, 2020, this Court extended the interim bail granted by the Court below in favour of the applicant-accused. On 17^th of August, 2020, however, this Court directed the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Bandipora to take the applicant-accused in custody and handover the same to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Srinagar with a direction to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Srinagar, to take the custody of the applicant-accused from the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Bandipora, after complying with all the protocol in vogue for containing the spread of COVID-19 Pandemic. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Srinagar was also directed to get the applicant-accused medically examined and provide him all the necessary treatment as may be required for him as per medical advice and in keeping with the mandate of Jail Manual.

¶21

Thereafter, the applicant-accused filed another application before this Court, being CrlM No. 754/2020, seeking grant of bail in his favour on medical grounds in the aforesaid case registered against him, more specifically in view of the medical advice given to him by the Medical Officer, District Hospital, Bandipora, vide certificate dated 4^th of September, 2020, in

¶22

Page 3 of 5

¶23

BA No. 58/2020 CrlM No. 754/2020

¶24

terms whereof the applicant-accused has been advised to undergo surgery for ‘Acute Cholelithiasis’ .

¶25

When the aforesaid application was listed before this Court on 10^th of November, 2020, the Court, while issuing notice to the other side, directed the concerned Jail Superintendent to get the applicant-accused medically examined by a Medical Board and report compliance by 12^th of November, 2020.

¶26

On 12^th of November, 2020, Mr B. A. Dar, the learned Senior Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the respondent-Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, produced a communication bearing No. CJS/MJ/2020/3928 dated 11^th of November, 2020, issued by the Senior Superintendent, Central Jail, Srinagar, informing therein that the applicantaccused is scheduled to be examined by Medical Board on 12^th of November, 2020. Given this position, the matter was directed to be listed on 13^th of November, 2020, i.e., today for further proceedings.

¶27

Today, when the matter came up for consideration before the Court, Mr Dar produced communication bearing No. CJS/MJ/UT/2020/3934 dated 12^th of November, 2020, issued by the Senior Superintendent, Central Jail, Srinagar, annexing therewith the report of the Medical Board constituted for examining the applicant-accused in compliance of the directions passed by this Court.

¶28

Page 4 of 5

¶29

BA No. 58/2020 CrlM No. 754/2020

¶30

Perusal of the report of the Medical Board so constituted reveals that the applicant-accused has been examined and it has been found that no ‘Cholelithiasis’ or any other mass is present in the Gall Bladder of the applicant-accused, as such, the applicant-accused is suffering from no surgical disease and does not require any surgical intervention at the present moment. Copy of the communication dated 12^th of November, 2020, alongwith the report of the Medical Board, so produced is taken on record.

¶31

When confronted with the above position, Mr M. S. Reshi, the learned counsel for the applicant-accused, submits that the main bail application, alongwith the subsequent CrlM No.754/2020, may be disposed of giving liberty to the applicant-accused to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction for seeking regular bail on the grounds as may be available to the applicant-accused in accordance with the law governing the subject. The learned counsel contends that the alleged quantity of contraband recovered from the applicant-accused, even if taken to be correct, falls within the ‘intermediate quantity’ as it is greater than the ‘small quantity’ and lesser than the ‘commercial quantity’ prescribed in the Act of 1985, as such, the rigor of Section 37 of the Act of 1985 is not applicable to the case of the applicantaccused thus, the applicant-accused is entitled to be enlarged to bail in the aforesaid case registered against him.

¶32

Without commenting upon the merits of the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant-accused qua admitting the applicant-accused on regular bail, it is thought just and proper

¶33

Page 5 of 5

¶34

BA No. 58/2020 CrlM No. 754/2020

¶35

to take on board the main bail application and dispose of the same as well as the subsequent application bearing CrlM No.754/2020 with liberty to the applicant-accused to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction for seeking regular bail in connection case bearing FIR No. 04/2020 registered in Police Station Sumbal, for the commission of offence punishable under Section 8/22 of the Act of 1985 on the grounds as may be available to the applicant-accused in terms of the law governing the field.

¶36

09. I order accordingly.

¶37

BA No.58/2020 disposed of as above, alongwith the connected CrlM No.754/2020.

¶38

Copy of this order be provided to the learned counsel for the applicant-accused under the Seal and Signatures of the Bench Secretary/ Reader of this Court, today itself.

¶39

(Ali Mohammad Magrey) Judge SRINAGAR November 13^th , 2020 “TAHIR” i. Whether the Order is reportable? Yes/ No. ii. Whether the Order is speaking? Yes/ No.

¶40

TAHIR MANZOOR BHAT 2020.11.13 11:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Ghulam Mohammad Mir v. Union Territory through Police Station Sumbal (Home Department)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ghulam Mohammad Mir v. Union Territory through Police Station Sumbal (Home Department)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jamat Ali Vs State Th.Home Deptt.and Ors.

Nitin Bakshi Vs Union Territoryof J and K Th SHO Police Station Domana and Anr.

Akber Din and Ors. Vs Union Territory of J and K Th Ssp Poonch and Anr.

Mohammad Ashraf Tantray and Others Vs Hirdesh Kumar and Ors.

Zaffar Iqbal Bhat Vs Farooq Ahmad Lone and Ors.

Mohammad Amin Sheikh Vs State of J and K and Ors. (Phe, I and Fc Department)