Back
2026 Supreme(J&K) 9
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
M.A.CHOWDHARY, J.
Aijaz Ahmad Dar, S/o. Ghulam Mohammad Dar – Petitioner
Versus
Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir, Through Superintendent – Respondent
Bail App No. 193 of 2025
Decided On : 17-04-2026
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail - NDPS Act
Act Referred
NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT : S.15, S.29, S.36(c), S.37, S.52, S.8
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.109, S.120(b), S.407
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.21
Headnote
(B) Bail principles - Considerations include prima facie case, offence gravity, punishment severity, flight risk, witness tampering apprehension - NDPS Section 37 adds restrictions but not absolute bar; requires hearing public prosecutor and satisfaction on innocence and conduct. (Paras 16-18)
Facts of the case:
Information led to raid on premises yielding 170 KG poppy straw (commercial quantity) and hoarded government rice packed as branded - FIR under NDPS Sections 8/15/29 and IPC - Charges framed - Trial ongoing with most NDPS-related witnesses examined - Trial court rejected petitioner’s bail citing commercial quantity; co-accused bailed.
Findings of Court:
Petition allowed; petitioner admitted to bail subject to trial court conditions.
Issues: Whether petitioner entitled to bail despite NDPS commercial quantity rigors; applicability of parity with bailed co-accused; impact of contradictory witness statements and joint recovery; prolonged detention effect.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 37 not bar if twin conditions met - Joint property recovery not establishing individual conscious possession; parity applicable where co-accused face similar charges from same evidence; four-year undertrial detention and examined witnesses justify bail without thwarting justice.
Result: Bail application allowed.
For the Petitioner:Mr Syed Faisal Qadri, Senior Advocate with M/S Bhat Shafi and Rayees Lone, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr Bikramdeep Singh, Dy. AG with Ms Nowbahar Khan, Advocate.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. commercial quantity contraband recovered from joint premises. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 2. bail weighs prima facie case, gravity, tampering risks. (Para 16) |
| 3. ndps section 37 twin conditions for commercial bail. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 4. parity in joint ndps possession after substantial evidence. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. bail granted on parity and trial advancement. (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
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 3rd of June, 2023, which was subsequently made absolute vide Order dated 15th 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
