The record
Written from the 1 report below. Nothing here is unsourced.
- The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court on September 1, 2026 dismissed a plea by the Union Territory seeking cancellation of bail granted to Ghulam Nabi Mir.
- Ghulam Nabi Mir was arrested on May 6, 2026 on allegations of cultivating opium poppy on one marla of land.
- Justice Rajnesh Oswal found no allegation that Mir had violated any bail conditions after release.
- The court held the strict restrictions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act did not apply, so bail had to be considered under Section 18(c) alone.
- The ruling means Mir's bail stands and signals courts will scrutinise whether Section 37 truly applies before denying bail in such drug cases.
What to watch next
- Whether the Union Territory appeals the high court's decision to a higher forum.
- Progress of the underlying NDPS trial against Mir in Anantnag.
- How courts in the region apply Section 37 of the NDPS Act in similar small-quantity cultivation cases.
Who said what2
Only words found exactly in the article are shown, attributed and linked to the line they came from.
Rajnesh Oswal
Justice of the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh high court
2 quotes · 1 outlet
“There is, however, no whisper that the respondent, after being granted bail, had violated the terms and conditions imposed by the court of learned Special Judge, NDPS, Anantnag, in terms of order dated 29.05.2026”
In the article
…Oswal noted that there was no allegation that Mir had breached any of the bail conditions after his release. “The petitioner was arrested on 06.05.2026 and was enlarged on interim bail vide order dated 29.05.2026. There is, however, no whisper that the respondent, after being granted bail, had violated the terms and conditions imposed by the court of learned Special Judge, NDPS, Anantnag, in terms of order dated 29.05.2026 ,” the court said. The bench also considered the applicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The court said the restrictions under that provision did not apply in the present case and that the bail application was…
“Admittedly, the rigours of Section 37 of NDPS were not applicable in the instant case and the bail application ought to have been considered solely taking into consideration the provisions of Section 18(c) of the NDPS Act”
In the article
…Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The court said the restrictions under that provision did not apply in the present case and that the bail application was therefore required to be considered under Section 18(c) of the Act. “ Admittedly, the rigours of Section 37 of NDPS were not applicable in the instant case and the bail application ought to have been considered solely taking into consideration the provisions of Section 18(c) of the NDPS Act ,” the court noted. The court also noted that the Special Judge had referred to the Supreme Court’s direction in Anna Waman Bahalerao versus State of Maharashtra regarding disposal of bail applications within two…
Coverage1
All filed from India
Named India · Ghulam Nabi Mir · Anantnag Special Judge NDPS · Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court · Supreme Court of India · Union Territory
The 1 report is listed beside the record.
Ask this story
Answers cite the reports above, or say they can't.