JUDGMENT :

RAJNESH OSWAL, J.

CRM(M) No. 999/2025

1. The petitioner has filed CRM(M) No. 999/2025 for quashing of the order dated 07.08.2025 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge (Special Court under NDPS Act), Samba (for short 'the Trial Court'), whereby he has been charged along with others, for commission of offences punishable under Sections 8/20/25/27-A/29 of the NDPS Act. Simultaneously, the petitioner has filed an application for grant of bail bearing Bail App No. 261/2025. Both these petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The petitioner has impugned the order dated 07.08.2025 primarily on the ground that the learned Trial Court has relied heavily on confessional statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, which are inadmissible in evidence for the purpose of framing charges. Furthermore, the complaint filed by the respondent lacks specific allegations or material evidence against the petitioner. The respondent has failed to attribute any active role to the petitioner regarding the procurement, concealment, transportation, or financing of the alleged contraband and his inclusion as an accused is based solely on his association with the co-accused, devoid of independent corroboration. It is also stated that his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC as well as that of the co-accused, clearly reflects that the petitioner was a mere occupant of the vehicle, neither possessing knowledge, nor participation in the alleged offenses. Additionally, the provisions of Section 27-A of the NDPS Act are inapplicable, as there is no cogent evidence of the petitioner financing illicit activities. While the respondent vaguely refers to bank transactions involving co-accused accounts, no link establishes the petitioner's involvement. Mere Call Detail Records (CDRs) showing communication between petitioner and co- accused do not constitute proof of financing. Accordingly, it is urged that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the controversy properly at hand.

3. Mr. M. A. Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the submissions made in the memo of petition and has vehemently argued that the petitioner was merely a co-occupant of the vehicle and except that there is no allegation against the petitioner in respect of any knowledge that such contraband was lying in that vehicle, which is substantiated by the statement made by the petitioner and the co-accused No. 2. He has placed reliance upon the judgments as mentioned in the order impugned.

4. Per contra, Mr. Vishal Sharma, learned DSGI appearing for the respondent, submits that specific prior information was received indicating that the petitioner, acting in concert with other accused persons, was transporting a substantial quantity of contraband from Kashmir to Mumbai. Acting on this intelligence, a naka was established, leading to the apprehension of the petitioner and his co-accused and the subsequent recovery of 11 kilograms of Charas (commercial quantity) from the vehicle. He further contends that, at the stage of framing charges or considering discharge, the Court is not required to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence. Rather, the evidence is to be sifted solely to determine the existence of a prima facie case sufficient to put the accused to trial. He has further submitted that the learned trial court has rightly passed the order.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Record depicts that a complaint titled 'Union of India through Sub-Inspector Narcotics Control Bureau, Jammu vs. Khureshi Yasin Inayatali and others' has been filed by the respondent against the petitioner and other accused for commission of offences punishable under Sections 8/20/26/27- A and 29 of the NDPS Act. It is stated that on 29.03.2024, Sh. Ram Shankar Paswan, Sub Inspector, NCB Jammu received the secret information from a reliable source that four persons namely, Khureshi Yasin Inayatali, Mitesh C Bagda, Bhat