HC dismisses anticipatory bail plea, says parallel proceedings amount to forum shopping

21/08/2026

SRINAGAR, Aug 20: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed an anticipatory bail application filed by Umar Farooq Bhat in connection with an NDPS case, holding that a person who has already approached the competent Sessions Court cannot simultan-eously pursue a parallel bail application before the High Court.
Justice Shahzad Azeem passed the order on August 17, 2026, while dealing with Bail Application No. 146/2026 filed by Bhat, who apprehended arrest in connection with FIR No. 172/2026 registered on June 29, 2026 at Police Station Budgam under Sections 8, 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
The petitioner had invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, contending that he apprehended arrest after the Investigating Officer issued him a notice under Section 67 of the NDPS Act directing him to appear for questioning.
Bhat argued that he was neither named in the FIR nor had any narcotic substance been recovered from his possession and, therefore, he was entitled to protection against arrest.
The court, however, noted that the petitioner had already filed a similar application before the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Budgam, and that the said application was still pending disposal.
The High Court observed that despite the pending proceedings before the Sessions Court, the petitioner approached the High Court midway through those proceedings without assigning any plausible reason for doing so, except referring to certain conditions incorporated in the interim order passed by the Sessions Court.
Calling the practice impermissible, Justice Azeem relied upon the Supreme Court's judgment in Jagdeo Prasad vs State of Bihar & Ors, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2108, which emphasised that High Courts should encourage exhaustion of alternative or concurrent remedies before directly exercising their jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court, as noted by the High Court, has observed that such an approach allows the aggrieved party a first round of challenge before the appropriate court and also enables the High Court to consider the judicial view already taken by the court exercising concurrent jurisdiction.
The High Court further noted that the Sessions Court had incorporated conditions in its interim order and that those conditions were subject to further orders after filing of objections and the police report.
The court also examined the FIR and observed that heroin had been seized from the custody of two accused persons, while the petitioner had only been served a notice under Section 67 of the NDPS Act.
On the issue of the Section 67 notice, the court explained that the provision enables an authorised officer to call upon "any person" to furnish information during an inquiry. It observed that the provision is essentially investigative in nature and is intended to enable the investigating agency to gather material required for forming the requisite "reason to believe" before exercising statutory powers of entry, search or arrest.
The court made it clear that mere receipt of a notice under Section 67 does not, by itself, make a person an accused or amount to a formal accusation. It observed that a person receiving such a notice is required to furnish the information sought and that, in the absence of a reasonable apprehension of arrest based on concrete material, a Section 67 notice cannot be construed as an accusation.
The court further held that the due process of inquiry cannot be stifled at that stage and observed that the question of arrest would arise only when an empowered officer has reason to believe that a person has committed an offence under the NDPS Act.
The High Court also referred to the Supreme Court judgment in State of Haryana vs Samarth Kumar, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2087, concerning offences under the NDPS Act, in which the Supreme Court had held that grant of pre-arrest bail in the circumstances of that case was not warranted and had set aside the High Court order granting anticipatory bail.
Justice Azeem ultimately held that once it was established that the petitioner had already approached the Sessions Court and that his application remained pending, he could not be permitted to simultaneously invoke and continue parallel proceedings before the High Court.
"Such a course amounts to forum shopping and cannot be countenanced," the court observed.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed Bail Application No. 146/2026 and directed that a copy of the order be communicated to the trial court forthwith for information.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty