Jammu and Kashmir High Court
CRM(M)/685/2026 of UT OF J AND K TH POLICE STATION REASI Vs TAJ MOHD AND OTHERS on 14 July 2026
OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CRM(M) No. 685/2026 CrlM No. 1228/2026 UT of J&K through Police Station, Reasi …..Petitioner Through: Mr. Dewakar Sharma, Dy. AG. Vs 1. Taj Mohd. S/O Mohd. Rafiq R/O Pouni Tehsil, District Reasi. 2. Sanjay Kumar S/O Kartar Nath R/O Aghar
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CRM(M) No. 685/2026
CrlM No. 1228/2026
UT of J&K through Police Station, Reasi
…..Petitioner
Through: Mr. Dewakar Sharma, Dy. AG.
Vs
1.
Taj Mohd. S/O Mohd. Rafiq
R/O Pouni Tehsil, District Reasi.
2.
Sanjay Kumar S/O Kartar Nath
R/O Aghar Ballian Teshil and
District Reasi.
3.
Shakhi Mohd. S/O Faqeer Mohd.
R/O Bhaber Brahmana, Teshil and
District Reasi.
.…. Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M A CHOWDHARY, JUDGE
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
(14.07.2026)
01. The petitioner-UT of J&K, through Police Station, Reasi, has filed this petition in terms of Section 439(2) Cr.P.C, 1973 read with Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 for quashing/cancellation of bail granted by the court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Reasi vide order dated 24.04.2026 passed in File No. 30/2026 titled – “Taj Mohd. & Ors. Vs UT of J&K”. Vide impugned order, the respondents No. 2 and 3 were admitted to an interim bail upto 06.05.2026. Serial No. 05 Regular List
2 CRM(M) No. 685/2026 CrlM No. 1228/2026
02. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on previous date of hearing, had been directed to place on record any order granting absolute bail in favour of the respondents.
03. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has been informed by the prosecution agency that the proceedings before the court below have been stayed in a petition filed by the petitioner before this Court.
04. Otherwise also, this petition is not maintainable as this petition has been filed against an order granting an interim bail/short bail for a period, which has already expired.
05. In this view of the matter, the petition is misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed along with connected application(s).
(M A CHOWDHARY) JUDGE JAMMU
14.07.2026
Bunty
Bunty Kumar 2026.07.14 18:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document