Bail granted under NDPS Section 37 for commercial quantity case on parity with co-accused, joint possession, contradictory witness statements, prolonged four-year detention, and substantial trial progress.

JUDGMENT :

M. A. CHOWDHARY, J.

01. The Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short “the BNSS”), for his enlargement on bail in a case arising out of FIR No. 111/2022 registered at Police Station Beerwah, Budgam, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 8/ 15 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as “the NDPS Act”) and Sections 109, 407, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), wherein the Petitioner, along with two other co-accused, namely, Khursheed Ahmad Dar and Gh. Mohd. Dar, are facing trial for the commission of aforementioned offences before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Budgam (“the Trial Court” for brevity.)

02. The Petitioner, by virtue of the instant Petition, is seeking bail, mainly on the ground that he is behind the bars for more than three years and that all the witnesses, examined so far, have made totally contradictory statements on the point of recovery of psychotropic substance; that his other two accused have already been admitted to interim bail by the Trial Court vide Order dated 3^rd of June, 2023, which was subsequently made absolute vide Order dated 15^th of April, 2025, as such, on the basis of parity, he too deserves the same concession of bail.

03. In opposition, the Respondents have filed their Objections, inter alia, stating therein that the Petitioner is involved in a heinous crime where recovery of huge commercial quantity of contraband has been effected from the joint residential premises of the accused. It is further stated that the Petitioner has dishonestly cheated the members of public by falsely representing Government rice as branded rice and induced them to deliver money, thereby causing wrongful loss to the consumers and wrongful gain to himself. The Respondents have further pleaded that the release of the Petitioner, at this stage, poses a serious threat to the fair trial process and that there exists every possibility that the Petitioner may tamper with the prosecution evidence, influence witnesses or even abscond from the jurisdiction of the Court, as such, the bail application filed by the Petitioner merits outright rejection.

04. Mr Syed Faisal Qadri, the learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the Petitioner, submits that the poppy straw, weighing 171 KG, was alleged to have been recovered and seized from the nylon bags from the houses of all the accused and their joint tin shed in the compound and that all the three accused were arrested, however, the Trial Court had bailed out two of the accused and denied bail to the Petitioner herein under a misconception that the Petitioner is the main accused, though the Respondents, in their Objections, have admitted and so is also borne out from the record and the evidence led by the Prosecution before the Trial Court, that the seized contraband had been recovered from the joint property of all the accused, including the Petitioner herein.

05. He has further argued that out of 31 Prosecution witnesses cited in the witness calendar, 22 have already been examined, including all the eye-witnesses and, now, the witnesses left to be examined are either formal or witnesses to prove charges other than the offences punishable under the NDPS Act. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the statements of PWs-Mohammad Ayoub Malik (Sarpanch), Muzaffar Ahmad Khan and Farooq Ahmad Sheikh, who had been cited as witnesses to the recovery and seizure, and sub