Srinagar, Feb 9 (NationPress) The J&K and Ladakh High Court has expressed serious concern regarding the Station House Officer of the Sopore police station for failing to follow a court order, mandating the SHO’s personal appearance.

The court described the officer's failure to comply as ‘ridiculing the court direction and has instructed him to be present in court.

This issue arose in connection with the implementation of bailable warrants related to a bail cancellation case. The directive was issued by Justice Rahul Bharti while considering a bail application from the Union Territory via the Sopore Police Station, seeking the revocation of bail previously granted to Isharat Ahmad Mir in an NDPS case.

This case involves FIR No. 30/2023, filed under Sections 8 and 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at the Sopore Police Station.

Isharat Ahmad Mir was granted regular bail by the Additional Sessions Judge of Sopore on August 8, 2024, after being in custody since February 23, 2023.

The bail was granted with several conditions, including that Mir must not leave the UT of J&K without prior court permission, refrain from committing further offenses, provide contact details and residence information, and avoid influencing or intimidating witnesses for the prosecution.

The prosecution was also permitted to seek bail cancellation in case of any violations. Consequently, the Department of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs of the J&K UT granted authorization on November 25, 2024, to file a petition under Section 439(2) in conjunction with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for bail cancellation.

This petition was presented to the High Court on December 31, 2024. When the respondent did not appear despite the notice being served, the High Court, on October 29, 2025, issued bailable warrants of Rs 10,000 to ensure his presence and directed the concerned SHO to execute these warrants.

However, a report dated November 10, 2025, from the Sopore Police Station indicated that the accused had been taken into preventive detention and was held at District Jail Kathua.

The report also stated that he was detained on July 17, 2025, by the order of the Divisional Commissioner of Kashmir.

The High Court expressed its dissatisfaction, noting that the SHO was required to execute the bailable warrants and serve them on the respondent, regardless of his custody status.

Rather than visiting District Jail Kathua to serve the warrants, the SHO returned the process to the court without execution.

The court remarked that such behavior “renders him unamenable to suffer criminal contempt due to interference with the administration of justice.”

Consequently, the court instructed the SHO of Sopore Police Station to appear in person on the next hearing date and ordered that a copy of the order be provided for compliance. The case has been scheduled for February 20.