Prosecution cites cross-border narcotics smuggling, serious criminal allegations and key evidence; 29 witnesses examined in 2.5 months in Samba case
Jammu Tawi, October 16: Strong prosecution arguments led to the dismissal of three bail applications by courts in Samba and Jammu, the Prosecution Department of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir said on Friday.
On October 15, 2026, Additional Sessions Judge Samba Arvind Sharma dismissed the bail applications of Jagpreet Singh and Neeraj Jaiswal alias Romi in FIR No. 31/2023, registered at Police Station Ramgarh. The case involves cross-border narcotics smuggling through drones, the use of a Glock pistol and serious injuries sustained by two local youths.
Public Prosecutor Kuldeep Bhat argued that the accused had acted as local guides and that the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act applied due to the commercial quantity of narcotics involved. He also submitted that granting bail would send a wrong message to society.
The court rejected the pleas, citing the grave nature of the alleged offences, the logistical support and harbouring attributed to the accused, and the criminal antecedents of one of the applicants.
Highlighting the progress of the trial, the Department said that, in compliance with the High Court’s direction to conclude the proceedings within three months, the prosecution examined 29 witnesses in just two-and-a-half months. A total of 46 judicial hearings were held at the shortest possible intervals to expedite the trial.
In a separate case, Principal Sessions Judge Jammu Tahir Khursheed Raina, on October 14, dismissed the anticipatory bail application of Rajat Pal Singh in FIR No. 268/2026, registered under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) at Police Station Gandhi Nagar. The court also cancelled the interim protection granted to the applicant.
Public Prosecutor Himanshu Parkash relied on the Investigating Officer’s status report, which referred to bank statements, CCTV footage, an admission by one of the accused and the recovery of Rs 47,200.
The court also took note of the applicant’s absence when the matter was called for hearing and the failure of his counsel to inform it about his whereabouts. Considering the seriousness of the allegations and the material cited in the status report, the court found no justification for extending the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail, particularly in view of the applicant’s absence.
The Prosecution Department commended its public prosecutors for their diligence and commitment, reiterating its resolve to vigorously oppose bail in serious criminal cases and safeguard public safety.