Jammu and Kashmir High Court
CrlA(D)/11/2026 of UNION TERRITORY THROUGH POLICE STATION CHARARISHARIEF (POLICE / HOME) Vs UMAR AHAD NENGROO on 4 June 2026
66 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CrlM(190/2026) IN CrlA(D) 11/2026 UNION TERRITORY THROUGH POLICE STATION CHARARISHARIEF …Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Sr. AAG with Ms. Maha Majeed, Assisting Counsel. Vs. UMAR AHAD NENGROO ...Respondent(s)
S. No. 66
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CrlM(190/2026)
IN CrlA(D) 11/2026
UNION
TERRITORY
THROUGH
POLICE
STATION
CHARARISHARIEF
…Appellant(s)
Through: Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Sr. AAG with
Ms. Maha Majeed, Assisting Counsel.
Vs.
UMAR AHAD NENGROO
...Respondent(s)
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, 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.
O R D E R
04.06.2026
CrLM No.190/2026
1. Applicant has not taken steps for service upon the respondents in terms of order dated 27.02.2026.
2. For the reasons set out in the application, we condone the delay in filing the appeal against the order dated 16.09.2025, whereby the respondent was enlarged on bail by learned Special Judge NIA Court (Additional Sessions Judge) Budgam.
3. Application is disposed of.
CrLA(D) No.11/2026
1. We have heard Mr. Mohsin Qadri, learned Sr. AAG appearing for appellant, and perused the record.
2. Mr. Mohsin Qadri, learned Sr. AAG, submits that the order, pursuant to which the respondent was discharged, has already been assailed by the appellant.
3. Record depicts that initially FIR bearing No.49/2024 was registered with Police Station Charari Sharief, Budgam, for commission of offences punishable under Sections 13, 20, 38 & 39 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention), Act, and after conclusion of investigation, chargesheet for commission of above-mentioned offences was filed against the respondent and co-accused.
4. The learned trial court in terms of order dated 17.06.2025 charged the petitioner for commission of offence under Section 13 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act only, and discharged him in other offences as mentioned above. Thereafter the learned trial court in terms of order impugned in this appeal enlarged the respondent on bail.
5. Perusal of record further reveals that respondent was taken to custody on 10.06.2024 and was released on bail in terms of order impugned in this appeal, only on 16.09.2025.
6. The learned trial court by placing reliance upon the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in case titled “Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation”, and also “UT through Police Station Channapora Vs. Sameer Ahmad Koka”, directed the release of the respondent.
7. On examining the order impugned in this appeal, we hardly find any reason to show indulgence. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
8. However, order passed by the learned trial court shall remain subject to outcome of CrLA(D) No.72/2025 and in the event the appeal is decided in favour of the appellant, they can lay an appropriate motion before the learned trial court for modification of order dated 16.09.2025.
9. Disposed of.
(SANJAY PARIHAR) (RAJNESH OSWAL)
JUDGE JUDGE
SRINAGAR 04.06.2026 Ishaq