Man accused of cultivating opium poppy gets relief as J&K HC refuses to cancel bail

AI generated image used for representative purpose

NEW DELHI: The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh high court has refused to interfere with bail granted to a man accused of cultivating opium poppy on one marla of land, noting that he had not violated any of the conditions imposed while on bail.

The court dismissed the Union Territory’s plea challenging the bail order on September 1, 2026.Why was the man arrested?According to the court order, Ghulam Nabi Mir was arrested on May 6, 2026, on allegations that he had cultivated an opium poppy crop on one marla of land. The Special Judge, NDPS, Anantnag, initially granted him interim bail on May 29, which was subsequently made absolute.The Union Territory challenged the bail, arguing that Mir had committed an offence punishable under Section 18(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

It also questioned the Special Judge’s reasoning while granting bail.What did the high court find?Justice Rajnesh Oswal noted that there was no allegation that Mir had breached any of the bail conditions after his release.“The petitioner was arrested on 06.05.2026 and was enlarged on interim bail vide order dated 29.05.2026. There is, however, no whisper that the respondent, after being granted bail, had violated the terms and conditions imposed by the court of learned Special Judge, NDPS, Anantnag, in terms of order dated 29.05.2026,” the court said.

The bench also considered the applicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The court said the restrictions under that provision did not apply in the present case and that the bail application was therefore required to be considered under Section 18(c) of the Act.“Admittedly, the rigours of Section 37 of NDPS were not applicable in the instant case and the bail application ought to have been considered solely taking into consideration the provisions of Section 18(c) of the NDPS Act,” the court noted.The court also noted that the Special Judge had referred to the Supreme Court’s direction in Anna Waman Bahalerao versus State of Maharashtra regarding disposal of bail applications within two months. The Special Judge had also recorded that there was nothing on record suggesting that Mir had violated his bail conditions.The high court said that, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, there was no reason to interfere with the bail order.“Be that as it may, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any reason to interfere. The present petition is found to be without merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed,” it further added.The high court accordingly dismissed the Union Territory’s petition challenging the bail.