The main legal point established is the presumption of innocence, the avoidance of pre-trial punishment, and the need to balance individual liberty with the interest of society in the context of bail applications for non-bailable offences.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439 r/w Section 397 of the Cr.P.C., seeking bail in a case arising out of FIR No. 02 of 2022 for offences under Sections 8/20, 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, (for short 'the NDPS Act') registered with Police Station, Ganderbal.

2. As per the prosecution case, on 10.01.2022, Police Station Ganderbal received a written docket from Police Post Nagbal to the effect that while performing checking at Bakura crossing, the Police party saw two persons coming from Bakura to Nagbal. The said persons, on seeing the police party, attempted to flee from the spot but they were apprehended. During preliminary questioning, they revealed their names as Ghulam Jeelani Bhat S/o Abdul Rashid Bhat R/o Bakura and Ghulam Mohammad Wani, S/o Assadullah Wani, R/o Lider-Mad Pulwama. A search of the said persons was carried out and charas like substance was recovered from their possession contained in Maize covers (5 in number). Out of these, three Maize covers recovered from the petitioner herein. The quantity of contraband recovered from the petitioner was found to be 80 grams whereas the quantity of charas recovered from the co-accused was found to be 70 grams. Consequently, FIR was filed under Sections 8/20 and 29 of NDPS Act in Police Station, Ganderbal. The recovered substance was sealed and sent to FSL, Srinagar, by the Executive Magistrate and the FSL report is pending. The challan was produced before the Sessions Court, Ganderbal on 06.04.2022. It has been stated by the respondents in their objections/Response that as and when the FSL report is made available, a supplementary challan will be produced before the Sessions Court.

3. It appears that the petitioner had filed an application for grant of bail in his favour in the aforesaid FIR before the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Ganderbal. The said bail petition was heard along with a batch of bail petitions pertaining to different persons relating to different FIRs for offences under NDPS Act and the same was rejected by the said Court vide order dated 26.02.2022.

4. Being aggrieved of the said order, the petitioner has filed the instant petition before this Court for grant of bail in his favour on the grounds that the quantity of contraband that is alleged to have been recovered from his possession and the other accused person, even if taken together, do not fall in the category of 'commercial quantity' as defined in the Act and hence the rigor of Section 37 NDPS Act would not be applicable to the case. It is further contended that the contraband recovered has been weighed by the police along with the maize husk which has resulted in the contraband falling in the category of 'intermediate quantity' and if the weight of maize husk is excluded, the contraband recovered from the two accused persons including the petitioner herein would collectively fall within the category of 'small quantity'. It is further contended that being in possession of 'small quantity' would make the offence bailable in nature but in order to deprive the petitioner of the concession of bail, the weight of the maize husk has been included in the weight to bring it within 'intermediate quantity'. It is also contended that Section 29 of the NDPS Act, which pertains to punishment for abetment and criminal conspiracy, has been invoked against the petitioner and the co-accused merely to bring the alleged recovery within the parameters of 'intermediate quantity' though there is no material on record to substantiate it. The petitioner also claims to be the sole bread earner of his family and it has been stated that his continuous detention will put his family in great financial distress.

5. The respondent-State has resisted the bail petition by filing objections thereto. In its objections, the respondent-State has contended that the instant bail petition is liable to be dismissed as the petitioner is involved in a heinous