Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court Weekly Roundup March 9 - March 15, 2026

Nominal Index:Mahavir Singh @ Appu v. UT of J&K & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 83Akhand Prakash Shahi vs. Union of India & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 84Sham Lal v. State of J&K & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 85Tirath Singh Vs State of J&K 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 86Gopal Dass vs Surinder Kumar 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 87Sarita Devi Vs Mohan Singh 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 88UT of J&K Vs Maqbool Sheikh & connected matters 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 89Mohd. Ashraf Dar & Ors. v. UT of J&K & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 90Mohammad Yaseen & Anr Vs State2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 91Omesh Singh & Ors. v. UT of J&K & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 92Ghulam Mohammad Rah Vs UT Of J&K 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 93Gurjit Singh Vs. Narcotics Control Bureau, Jammu Zone 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 94Shokat Ali v. UT of J&K & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 95State of J&K & Ors v. Irshad Ahmad Sheikh & Anr 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 96Bansi Lal & Ors. v. State of J&K & Ors 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 97Mudasir Ahmad Bhat Vs UT Of J&K 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 98Sanjay Gupta & Anr Vs Prem Kumar 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 99Sudhir Kumar Vs Peerzada Tasaduq Hussain (Drug Inspector) 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 100Judgments/Orders:Preventive Detention Under PITNDPS Act Valid Only If Activities Fall Within Statutory Definition Of 'Illicit Traffic': J&K&L High CourtCase Title: Mahavir Singh @ Appu v. UT of J&K & OrsCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 83The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that preventive detention under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (PITNDPS) can be ordered only when the activities of a detenue fall within the statutory definition of “illicit traffic”.BSF Court Of Inquiry Can Proceed Alongside Criminal Trial : J&K high CourtCase Name : Akhand Prakash Shahi vs. Union of India & Ors.Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 84A Division Bench of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar held that preliminary Court of Inquiry under BSF Rules is merely a fact-finding exercise and it can proceed during pendency of a criminal trial. It does not amount to parallel departmental proceedings or cause prejudice to the accused employee.Man Electrocuted From High-Tension Line While Removing Bird Loses Both Hands; J&K&L High Court Orders ₹54.49 Lakh CompensationCase Title: Sham Lal v. State of J&K & Ors.Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 85The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held that a victim who suffers permanent disability due to electrocution caused by negligence of electricity department officials is entitled to compensation, and that such liability can arise under public law jurisdiction where negligence is established.Once Prosecution Establishes Facts, Accused Must Explain Circumstances Within His Knowledge Or Face Adverse Inference: J&K&L High CourtCase Title: Tirath Singh Vs State of J&KCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 86The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held that although the prosecution bears the primary burden of proving guilt, courts are entitled to draw an adverse inference under Section 106 of the Evidence Act where the accused fails to explain facts especially within his knowledge after the prosecution has established foundational circumstances.Cheque Bounce Complaint Cannot Be Dismissed For Want Of Prosecution Before Accused Is Served: J&K&L High CourtCase-Title: Gopal Dass vs Surinder KumarCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 87The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act should not be dismissed for want of prosecution when the accused has not yet been served and the matter is still at a preliminary stage.Private Agreement Cannot Dissolve Marriage But Can Be Relied On To Prove Mutual Separation, Act As Bar To Maintenance: J&K&L High CourtCase Title: Sarita Devi Vs Mohan SinghCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 88The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that even though a private agreement cannot dissolve a statutory marriage, such agreement can be relied upon to determine whether the spouses were living separately by mutual consent, in which case the bar under Section 488(5) Cr.P.C. (Pari Materia with Sec 125 CrPC) would operate to deny maintenance.Employer Can Re-Fix Pay & Pension To Correct Erroneous Dual Benefits But Recovery From Group C & D Employees Impermissible: J&K&L High CourtCase Title: UT of J&K Vs Maqbool Sheikh & connected mattersCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 89The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that the employer is not barred from correcting pay fixation and pension where employees were wrongly granted dual benefits, but recovery of excess payments from Group-C and Group-D employees, particularly after long periods, would be impermissible in law.J&K Forest Act | Confiscation Of Vehicle Carrying Non-Government Forest Produce Cannot Be Ordered Without Conviction Of Offender: High CourtCase Title: Mohd. Ashraf Dar & Ors. v. UT of J&K & Ors.Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 90The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that where seized forest...

Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court Weekly Roundup March 9 - March 15, 2026

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags