Jammu: Courts in Samba and Jammu have rejected three bail applications in two separate cases, including a case involving alleged cross-border narcotics smuggling through drones and a separate alleged fraud case, the Jammu and Kashmir Prosecution Department said on Friday.
On October 15, 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 Ramgarh police station.
According to the Prosecution Department, the case involves narcotics allegedly dropped by drones from across the border, the use of a Glock pistol and serious injuries to two local youths.
Public Prosecutor Kuldeep Bhat opposed the bail pleas, arguing that the accused had allegedly acted as local guides and that the restrictions on granting bail under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act applied because of the commercial quantity of narcotics involved.
The court cited the nature of the alleged offence, the logistical support and harbouring attributed to the accused, and the past antecedents of one of the applicants while rejecting the pleas, the department said.
The prosecution also informed the court that it had examined 29 witnesses over two-and-a-half months as part of efforts to conclude the trial within three months, in accordance with a direction of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court. The department said 46 judicial hearings had been held during this period.
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 Gandhi Nagar police station. The court also cancelled the interim protection granted to the applicant.
Public Prosecutor Himanshu Parkash opposed the application, relying on a status report submitted by the investigating officer. According to the prosecution, the report cited bank statements, CCTV footage, an admission by one of the accused and the recovery of Rs 47,200.
The department further said the applicant was absent when the matter was called for hearing and his counsel did not inform the court of his whereabouts. The court found no justification for extending the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail, according to the department’s statement.
The Prosecution Department said the decisions reflected its efforts to oppose bail in serious cases and ensure effective prosecution.
