Jammu and Kashmir High Court
CrlA(D)/10/2025 of ZAFFAR AHMAD WAZA Vs UNION TERRITORY THROUGH POLICE STATION LALPORA (HOME) on 4 November 2025
No. 23 REGULAR LIST IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CrlA(D) 10/2025 ZAFFAR AHMAD WAZA …Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Sheikh Hilal, Advocate Vs. UNION TERRITORY THROUGH POLICE STATION LALPORA ...Respondent(s) Through: Ms. Nowbahar Khan, Assisting
Serial No. 23
REGULAR LIST
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CrlA(D) 10/2025
ZAFFAR AHMAD WAZA
…Petitioner/Appellant(s)
Through:
Mr. Sheikh Hilal, Advocate
Vs.
UNION TERRITORY THROUGH
POLICE STATION LALPORA
...Respondent(s)
Through:
Ms. Nowbahar Khan, Assisting Counsel vice Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Sr. AAG
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, 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.
ORDER
04.11.2025
1. Impugned in this appeal filed by appellant under Section 21 of the NIA Act is an order dated 05-02-2025 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kupwara (designated Court under “NIA Act”) [“the Trial Court”] in bail application titled “Zaffar Ahmad Waza vs. UT of Jammu & Kashmir”, whereby the bail plea of the appellant for release on bail in case FIR No. 42 of 2022 registered with Police Station, Lalpora for offences under Sections 7/25 Arms Act and 13, 18 and 38 ULA(P) Act has been rejected.
2. The bail plea of the appellant has been rejected on the ground that during investigation offences under Sections 13, 18 and 38 ULA(P) Act, were made out for which the appellant also stands charge- sheeted, as such, the rigors of Section 43(D) of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act were attracted.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the considered opinion that out of 20 witnesses, only 11 witnesses have been examined so far and some of the important witnesses including the protected witness are yet to be examined in the trial. Having regard to the fact that the charges under Sections 13, 18 and 38 of ULA(P) Act have been framed against the petitioner, it cannot be said that the allegations against the appellant are not prima facie true and that the appellant can be enlarged on bail notwithstanding the rigors of Section 43 (D) of the Act.
4. Faced with the aforesaid position, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would fairly submit that he would not press this appeal provided he is given an opportunity to come to this Court again after a couple of relevant witnesses are examined.
5. Statement of the learned counsel is taken on record. This appeal is dismissed as not pressed with a liberty to the learned counsel for the appellant to file a fresh one after the Trial Court records 2 to 3 more witnesses including the protected witness in the matter.
6. Disposed of.
(SANJAY PARIHAR) (SANJEEV KUMAR)
JUDGE
JUDGE
SRINAGAR: 04.11.2025 Akhil Dev