JUDGMENT :

SHAHZAD AZEEM, J.

01. The Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita [BNSS] for his enlargement on bail for allegedly commission of offences punishable under Sections 8, 21, 29 and 60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act [“NDPS Act”].

02. The Petitioner and co-accused were sent up for trial for the commission of aforementioned offences by the Narcotics Control Bureau [“NCB”], Jammu and are as such facing trial before the Court of learned Special Judge (NDPS cases), Jammu [“the Trial Court”].

03. The Prosecution case, in brief, is that on August 06, 2018, NCB, Jammu alleged to have received a written complaint from the Station House Officer (SHO), Bahu Fort, Jammu, that they have received an information about transportation of narcotics consignment in a truck bearing registration No. JK02AD-3965. Accordingly, a team of NCB, Jammu, in collaboration with the police team of Police Station Bahu Fort, laid a Naka at Rajiv Nagar Chowk, Narwal Bye-Pass, Jammu, on August 06, 2018 and at around 1300 hours, the Truck in question was intercepted. On enquiry, the driver and conductor have disclosed their identities as Gurjit Singh (Petitioner herein) and Ravi Kumar (co-accused), respectively. During search, the accused said to have made a disclosure statement that the consignment of Heroin has been concealed in a false cavity of the cabin at the rear side of the truck. Consequently, 51 packets of Heroin, weighing 52.523 kilograms, including packaging material, alleged to have been recovered and seized. The Petitioner also alleged to have made a statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, whereby he had disclosed the names of other kingpins involved in the drug trafficking.

04. Accordingly, on completion of investigation, a complaint was filed by the NCB, Jammu, against the Petitioner and co-accused, which led to framing of formal charges vide Order dated May 03, 2019 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 8, 21, 29, and 60 of the NDPS Act.

05. It is noteworthy that in order to bring home the charge against the accused, the Prosecution has cited as many as 13 witnesses in the witness calendar, out of which, by now, 10 witnesses have been examined.

06. The Petitioner had moved an application seeking his enlargement on bail before the Trial Court, however, same was dismissed by Order dated June 25, 2025, mainly on the ground of statutory bar of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and seizure of huge commercial quantity of Heroin, which, as per the Trial Court, was having more than Rs. 250 crores market value, coupled with the past involvement of the Petitioner in commission of such type offences.

07. The Petitioner, by virtue of the instant Petition, is seeking bail, mainly on the ground that the Prosecution has examined only 06 witnesses, out of 14 cited witnesses and further that the Petitioner is behind the bars for more than seven years. Further ground taken by the Petitioner is that all the witnesses examined so far have made totally contradictory statements on the point of recovery of narcotics.

08. The star ground taken by the Petitioner is that he has undergone detention period of more than one-third of the maximum punishment specified for the offences and, thus, he being first-time offender is entitled to bail in terms of first proviso to Section 479 of BNSS.

09. In opposition, the Respondents have filed the Objections and note whereof shall be taken hereinafter at appropriate stage.

10. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the record.

11. Indisputably, the Petitioner was sent up for trial for allegedly trafficking in huge commercial quantity of Heroin and, according to the Trial Court, the market value of the seized contraband is more than Rs. 250 crores. Therefore, it goes without saying that the huge commercial quantity of Heroin came to be recovered from the possession of the Petitioner and the Trial Court, after dra