The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, Srinagar, granted a 20-day short-term bail to an accused under the NDPS Act, enabling him to attend to the medical needs of his minor daughter who is scheduled for surgery.

The bail petition was filed by Aasif Amin Thoker, booked under FIR No. 255/2021 at Police Station Qazigund, for alleged offences under Sections 8/15 and 29 of the NDPS Act. The case is pending trial before the Principal Sessions Judge, Kulgam.

Read also: Justice Arun Palli Sworn In As Chief Justice Of Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court

Initially, Thoker was granted short-term bail from March 29 to April 15, 2025, by the Sessions Court to allow him to get his daughter examined for a medical condition requiring ENT surgery. During this period, he took his daughter to Sher-e-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences, Srinagar, where she was diagnosed with Submucosal Nasal Twang, and surgery was scheduled for April 23, 2025.

To attend the surgery, Thoker sought an extension of the bail. However, his request was rejected by the Principal Sessions Judge on April 15, 2025, leading to his return to District Jail, Kuthua.

Read also: Criminal Court Alone Can Give 'No Objection' for Passport If Case is Pending: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Thoker then approached the High Court, where Justice Rahul Bharti heard the matter. The High Court took note of the facts and emphasized the importance of a father’s presence during such medical emergencies.

“This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that presence of an elder male member of a family for attending upon an ailing daughter requiring surgery/hospitalization is a call of the day keeping in view the nature of the civil and social fabric of which all of us are part of,” the Court stated.

Read also: Jammu & Kashmir High Court Clarifies MCI Guidelines on Non-Medical Faculty Appointments

The High Court observed that the Sessions Judge ought to have continued judicial trust in the petitioner. It also noted that the earlier prescriptions were obtained when the petitioner was in custody, and the medical arrangements were made by his wife. The judge acknowledged that there might have been a lapse in representation by his counsel, which led to denial of bail, a consequence Thoker should not suffer.

The Court further highlighted that the daughter’s surgery had been rescheduled for April 29, 2025, due to a fever that delayed the initial date.

“May be the petitioner’s counsel… was not able to stitch facts properly for which the petitioner should not have been made to suffer prejudice of having denial of extension of bail,” noted Justice Rahul Bharti.

APPEARANCE

Usman Gani, Advocate For Petitioner

Case-Title: Asif Amin Thokar vs UT of J&K , 2025