Jammu : The Prosecution Department of Jammu and Kashmir Wednesday highlighted three significant judicial outcomes of 5 and 6 October 2026, achieved through the dedication, thorough preparation and persuasive advocacy of its prosecutors.
On 6 October 2026, the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Poonch Susheel Singh, convicted Sherbaz Ahmed, Anzar Ahmed and Rafiq Azam under Section 8/21 (c) of the NDPS Act in the case registered as FIR No. 56/2022 at Police Station Mendhar. The Court held that a total of four kilograms of heroin, a commercial quantity, was recovered. The Ld. Public Prosecutor Pankaj Sethi examined 27 PWs out of the 29 cited witnesses, including naka party members, Malkhana and link witnesses and the forensic expert. The Court noted that the Forensic Science Laboratory detected Diacetyl Morphine (heroin) in all samples and that discrepancies on peripheral matters did not damage the core prosecution case. Arguments on sentence are listed for 7 October 2026.
In another matter, On 5 October 2026, the Special Judge (NDPS Cases), Jammu Parvaiz Iqbal, rejected the regular bail plea of accused Mohd Mangal Hussain in FIR No. 35/2026 of Police Station Miran Sahib. The Ld. Special Public Prosecutor Sunil Kumar vehemently opposed the application, stressing that commercial quantity was involved, hence bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act applied and that the accused could re-indulge in drug peddling or tamper with evidence if released. The Court found the plea hit by the rigour of Section 37, noting that charges had already been framed on 17 September 2026 on prima facie evidence of conspiracy with the co-accused, from whom 268.59 grams of heroin was recovered.
In a third matter, On 6 October 2026, the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Munsiff), Jammu Rekha Sharma, rejected the bail application of Raman Kumar in FIR No. 260/2026 of Police Station Satwari under Section 318(4) of the BNS. The Ld. Asst. Public Prosecutor Palak Sharma objected, pointing to alleged prolonged fraud from 2021 to 2023 on the promise of government employment, similar FIRS against the accused, his residence about three kilometres from the complainant and the risk of intimidating witnesses and tampering with electronic evidence. The Court agreed that the accused appeared to be a repeat offender, along with investigation being incomplete and that influencing witnesses was highly probable.
The Department said these results reflect meticulous case preparation, fairness and unwavering commitment by its prosecutors, who protect society from the drug menace and safeguard citizens against fraud.
