The court ruled that mere financial transactions and statements without recovery do not support charges under drug laws, emphasizing presumption of innocence and the need for sufficient evidence for bail considerations.

JUDGMENT

1. Through the medium of the instant successive petition filed in terms of the provisions of Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (hereinafter referred to as „BNSS‟ for short), bail in favour of the petitioner/accused namely Afraz Mehboob Tak S/o Mehboob Ahmed Tak, R/o Munshi Mohalla, Near Nehru Chowk, District Doda in Crime No. 24/2024 of Narcotics Control Bureau, Jammu Zonal Unit, Jammu, registered under Sections 8 /21, 22, 27A, 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , 1985 (hereinafter referred to as „NDPS Act‟ for short) has been sought on the grounds inter alia that he is a citizen of India and a permanent resident of UT of J&K, as such, entitled to seek protection of his constitutional as well as other legal rights. That he is innocent and has been falsely and frivolously implicated in the case. That he is a young qualified businessman running a hotel and a restaurant by the name of Tak Residency Hotel & Restaurant at Doda. That he is a sole bread earner of his family having old and ailing parents as also his wife and a child. That he and the co-accused are known to each other being from the same area. That he was called to its office by the respondent-Narcotics Control Bureau, Jammu Zonal Unit, Jammu, several times and was formally arrested on 10.03.2025 in connection with the case. That despite fully cooperating with the Investigating Officer of the crime number in question, he was unfortunately booked in the case on account of his alleged involvement in the case by way of financing the said illicit trafficking under a conspiracy. That upon his arrest in the crime in question on 10.03.2025, he immediately approached the Court of learned Special Judge (NDPS Cases), Jammu (hereinafter referred to as „the trial Court‟ for short) seeking bail by agitating his non-involvement in the case. That the learned trial Court through a common order dated 09.04.2025 passed on the said application as also on the remand application of the respondent rejected the said bail application on the main ground that the petitioner/accused is involved in financing of the illicit trafficking in the Narcotics Substances under conspiracy. That the main basis for his involvement in the case is the alleged statement of the co-accused Saqib Zaffar made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act as also of his own such statement without there being any recovery from him pursuant to the aforesaid alleged statements. That he has been involved in the case on the basis of a small bank transaction from his account to the account of the co-accused Saqib Zaffar without any supporting evidence, to the effect that the same was done in connection with the alleged crime. That the disclosure statement of the accused or a co-accused is not admissible in evidence unless the same leads to some recovery or identification of a new fact. That since the co-accused was already known to petitioner being from his area, as such, he had admittedly made the transfer of some minor amount to the co-accused in connection with procurement of some article for his hotel. That nothing has been either recovered from his conscious possession or even at his instance subsequent to the alleged disclosures made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act by him as well as by co-accused. That no conspiracy can be attributed to have been hatched by him in the facts and circumstances of the case. That the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act cannot be attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case as there appear no reasonable grounds of his involvement in the crime in question. That he has been suffering incarc