Bail in NDPS commercial quantity cases demands substantial probable causes to believe non-guilt and no reoffending risk; minor witness contradictions inadequate against prima facie prosecution support.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY DHAR, J.

1) The petitioners, through the medium of present petition, have sought bail in a case arising out of FIR No.158/2023 for offences under Sections 8/15 read with Section 29 of NDPS Act registered with Police Station, Rajbagh, Bijbehara, which is stated to be pending before the Court of Special Judge (Designated under NDPS Act), Anantnag (for short “the Special Judge”).

2) As per the allegations made in the challan filed against the petitioners, on 04.07.2023, P/S Bijbehara received source information to the effect that petitioner No.1 has concealed a large quantity of contraband substance in his residential house at Tulkhan Bijbehara. Upon receipt of this information, FIR No.158/2023 for offences under Section 8/15 and 29 of NDPS Act came to be registered and investigation was set into motion. During the course of investigation, one KG Poppy Straw was recovered from the residential house of petitioner No.1. He was taken into custody on 04.07.2023, whereafter he made a disclosure statement that he along with his associate, petitioner No.2 herein, have concealed more quantity of Poppy Straw under a heap of grass at Tulkhan Bijbehara.

3) On the basis of aforesaid disclosure statement made by petitioner No.1, the police in presence of the Executive Magistrate, 1^st Class, reached the spot and it was found that petitioner No.2 is loading Poppy Straw in a load carrier bearing registration No.JK03E-6443 with a view to relocate/conceal the Poppy Straw. The load carrier along with six quintals of Poppy Straw (60 bags) were seized in presence of the Executive Magistrate. Petitioner No.2 was arrested on 05.07.2023.

4) Upon seizure and sealing of the recovered contraband substance, the samples were drawn and the same were sent to the FSL for expert opinion. After receipt of opinion of FSL, it was found that the aforesaid offences are established against the petitioners and, accordingly, the charge sheet was produced before the learned trial court on 09.09.2023. 5) A perusal of the record would reveal that the charges for offences under Section 8(c) read with Section 15(c) and 29 of NDPS Act stand framed against the petitioners in terms of order dated 03.11.2023 passed by the learned trial court. The record of the trial court shows that out of 20 witnesses cited in the challan, statements of as many as 11 witnesses have been recorded so far. It also appears that the learned trial court vide its order dated 14.05.2025 has declined to extend the concession of bail to the petitioners and has rejected their bail application.

6) The petitioners have sought bail in their favour on the grounds that the learned trial court has, while rejecting bail application of the petitioners, acted in a mechanical manner even though there was no material available with it that would warrant rejection of their bail application. It has been further contended that independent witnesses have not supported the search and seizure procedure and no warrant was obtained before conducting search of the premises of petitioner No.1. It has been further contended that there are serious contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses which have not been taken into account by the learned trial court while declining bail to the petitioners. It has been further contended that there is delay in trial of the case and, as such, on this ground also, the petitioners are entitled to grant of bail.

7) The respondent Investigating Agency has contested the bail applications by filing its reply to the same. In its reply, the respondent Inve