Admissible evidence, such as financial transactions and witness statements, can support a defendant's involvement in a crime, even if a co-accused's confessional statement is inadmissible. The restrictions in Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to bail applications on health grounds.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in FIR No. 113/2021 for offences under section 8/15, 29 of NDPS Act read with Sections 3/181 and 196(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act registered with Police Station, Srigufwara.

2. As per the prosecution case, on 19.12.2021, the police had laid a Naka at Poshkeri crossing, Bijbehara. They stopped a trawler bearing Registration No. JK02AV-1795 that was proceeding from Poshkeri towardsBijbehara. During checking of the trawler, 23 nylon bags were found loaded in it. These bags were found to contain fukki (Poppy Straw) like substance. The driver of the vehicle disclosed his name as Rakesh Kumar and he could not give any justification for possession of contraband substance. Accordingly, FIR No. 113/2021 was registered and the investigation was set into motion. Accused Rakesh Kumar made a disclosure statement that he had loaded these 23 bags containing Poppy Straw from the house of accused Mohd. Amin Malik, the petitioner herein, and that the said Poppy Straw was to be sold to a Sikh gentleman who is a resident of Ferozpur Punjab. The petitioner was taken into custody and he made a disclosure statement in the presence of an Executive Magistrate stating that he had obtained these 23 bags containing Poppy Straw from co-accused Irshad Ahmad Das who was also taken into custody. After investigation of the case, it was found that the petitioner andco-accused are indulging in illicit trade of contraband substances. Thus offences under section 8/15, 29 of NDPS Act read with Sections 3/181 and 196(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act were found established against all the accused including the petitioner herein. The challan is stated to have been laid before the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Anantnag.

3. It appears that the petitioner had approached the trial court for grant of bail but his bail application has been declined in terms of order dated 21.05.2022 whereas bail application of co-accused Irshad Ahmad Das has been accepted in terms of order dated 13.05.2022.

4. It has been contended in the petition that the petitioner has been booked only on the basis of the confessional statement of a co-accused and that nothing has been recovered from his possession. It has been submitted that the confession of a co-accused is not admissible in evidence and, as such, there was no material on record for the trial court to decline the prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail. It is also contended that the co-accused Irshad Ahmad Das, who had also been booked on the basis of a confessional statement made by the co-accused, has been granted bail. The petitioner has also sought bail on the ground of his health condition and it is stated that he is a senior citizen suffering from various ailments which pose great threat to his life. Copies of the medical record in this regard have been placed on record. In support of the contentions urged by the petitioner, reliance has been placed upon the following judgments:

I) Babu Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P.; (1978) 1 SCC 579;

II) Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR 2012 SC 830;

III) Rayees Ahmad Dar v. UT of J&K (Bail App No. 05/2022 decided on 21.05.2022).

5. No reply has been filed by the respondent despite availing a number of opportunities. However, the respondent has the latest health status report of the petitioner.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

7. As per the prosecution case, as already noted, commercial quantity of contraband substance has been recovered from the possession of co-accused Rakesh Kumar. The petitioner has been booked in this case by the investigating agency by taking resort to the provisions contained in Section 29 of the NDPS Act, alleging that the petitioner is a party to the criminal conspiracy relating to the offence of possession and dealing with contraband substance.

8. So far as the grant of bail in cases invo