J&K High Court Refuses to Cancel NDPS Bail Where Accused Cultivated Opium on 1 Marla and Violated No Bail Conditions

Justice Rajnesh Oswal dismissed the State's petition challenging bail granted to a man accused of cultivating opium poppy on one marla of land, finding no breach of bail conditions and Section 37 of the NDPS Act inapplicable to his offence.

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar declined to cancel bail granted to Ghulam Nabi Mir, who was arrested on 6 May 2026 on allegations of cultivating opium poppy on a land measuring one marla. Justice Rajnesh Oswal, sitting singly, dismissed the State's petition on 1 September 2026, holding that the rigours of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 were not attracted to the alleged offence under Section 18(c) and that there was nothing on record to show that Mir had breached any condition of his bail. The order illustrates how bail cancellation petitions filed by the State in NDPS matters must clear a high bar when the accused's underlying offence does not trigger the more stringent bail threshold under Section 37.

Arrest, Interim Bail, and the State's Challenge

Ghulam Nabi Mir was arrested on 6 May 2026 by Police Station Mattan. The allegation was that he had cultivated the opium poppy crop on one marla of land, an offence the prosecution treated as falling under Section 18(c) of the NDPS Act.

The Special Judge, NDPS, Anantnag granted Mir interim bail on 29 May 2026. That interim bail was subsequently made absolute by an order dated 15 June 2026. While making the bail absolute, the Special Judge noted — citing the Supreme Court's direction in Anna Waman Bahalerao v. State of Maharashtra — that bail applications must be decided within two months of institution. The Special Judge also recorded that nothing on record suggested Mir had violated his bail conditions.

The Union Territory, through Police Station Mattan, challenged the bail order before the High Court in CRM(M) 696/2026. Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway, Government Advocate, appeared for the petitioner.

The State's Submissions

The Government Advocate contended that the alleged offence under Section 18(c) of the NDPS Act is punishable, and that while the rigours of Section 37 were admittedly not applicable, the Special Judge had not assigned adequate reasons while granting bail. The submission, in essence, was one of inadequate reasoning rather than a specific allegation of bail condition violation or post-bail misconduct.

The Special Judge's order was also said to have focused on the limited scale of the cultivation — noting the allegation pertained to limited cultivation and not to recovery of any commercial quantity — without setting out a fuller analysis.

The High Court's Reasoning

Justice Oswal identified two key features of the case. First, Mir had been on bail since 29 May 2026 and there was not even a whisper in the petition that he had violated any term or condition of his bail during that period. Second, and as a legal matter, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act were concededly not applicable to the facts of the case.

Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes stringent conditions on the grant of bail for offences involving commercial quantities, requiring the court to be satisfied, among other things, that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and will not commit any offence while on bail. Where those rigours do not apply, the ordinary principles governing bail operate. The High Court held that in this case the bail application ought to have been considered solely by reference to Section 18(c) of the NDPS Act.

On the question of reasoning, the court acknowledged the Special Judge's order was not elaborately reasoned, but the absence of detailed reasons — on its own — was insufficient to justify cancellation of bail already granted, particularly when the accused had not violated any condition. The court observed that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it found no reason to interfere with the order of the Special Judge.

The judgment implicitly reflects the well-settled distinction between the standard for granting bail and the considerably higher threshold for cancelling bail already granted. Once bail is in operation and no violation is demonstrated, courts must find compelling grounds to withdraw the liberty already extended to an accused.

Outcome

Justice Rajnesh Oswal dismissed CRM(M) 696/2026 on 1 September 2026, finding the petition to be without merit. The bail granted to Ghulam Nabi Mir by the Special Judge, NDPS, Anantnag — made absolute on 15 June 2026 — stands undisturbed.