##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Bail App No. 96/2026 CrlM No. 813/2026 Reserved on: - 29.10.2026 Pronounced on: - 31.10.2026 Uploaded on: - 31.10.2026 Whether the operative part or full judgment is pronounced: - full SAJAD AHMAD SHEIKH ….. Appellant/petitioner(s)

Through: -

Mr. Sajad Ashraf, Advocate V/s UT THROUGH POLICE STATION CHANAPORA AND ANR.

….. Respondent(s)

Through: -

Ms. Shaila Shameem, AC vice Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Sr. AAG CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE

JUDGMENT

01. Petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 12.05.2026, passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Srinagar [the “trial Court” for short], whereby his application for extension of medical bail came to be rejected.

02. As the prosecution case would unfurl, on 26.08.2024, the Naka party intercepted three persons travelling in a vehicle from Mehjoor Nagar to Budshah Nagar and on their search, 36 Bottles of Codril-T containing Codeine Phosphate, a manufactured drug under NDPS Act came to be recovered from accused Aniket Kumar. FIR No. 31/2024, came to be registered at Police Station, Chanapora for offences under Section 8/22 read with Section 29 of NDPS Act and the investigation culminated in the presentation of charge sheet against the petitioner and co-accused.

03. The petitioner approached this Court for medical bail on the ground that he was suffering with serious cardiac condition, Type-2 Diabetes Mellitus, Hypertension, fatty liver and associated ailments and this Court vide order dated 06.06.2025, while granting limited indulgence on the medical ground to the petitioner, left it open to the trial Court to examine further extension on the basis of his medical condition and the medical record.

04. On the expiry of four months, the petitioner approached the trial Court for extension of bail primarily contending that as per the latest cardiologist examination, his cardiac stent was required to be replaced, but procedure could not be carried out because his pulse rate was above the average limit. According to the petitioner, the prison facility was not sufficiently equipped to provide the level of specialized care that he requires and he apprehended that any failure to provide timely treatment may lead to irreversible complications.

05. The bail plea of the petitioner was opposed by the prosecution primarily on the ground that he was involved in a case of commercial quantity of manufacture drug, which was squarely covered by the bar contained in Section 37 NDPS Act. According to the prosecution, the medical record annexed by the petitioner by its own showing would not indicate any acute emergency or surgical urgency which could not be addressed within the existing medical infrastructure of the jail.

06. Pertinently, the prosecution opposed medical bail of the petitioner on the ground that he failed to make use of the bail granted by this Court in his favour for medical treatment, as the prescriptions placed on record relate only to his scattered visits in June, August and October, 2025 and it did not disclose any fixed date for any surgical intervention.

07. Learned trial Court rejected bail plea of the petitioner predominantly holding that the Standing Medical Board having had the benefit of the entire record and personal examination of the petitioner on two separate occasions recorded that petitioner, subject to the safeguards of close medical supervision and regular cardiology follow-up in the Super Specialty Hospital, can be kept in custody.

08. Petitioner is aggrieved of the observations of learned trial Court primarily on the ground that both the reports dated 08.01.2026 and 10.03.2026, submitted by the Medical Board, constituted on the directions of learned trial Court, for his assessment, reveal that he is suffering with serious cardiac ailments and he requires coronary angiography, regular cardiology follow-ups, continuous monitoring and specialized treatment.

09. According to the petitioner,