O R D E R

1. The petitioner is facing trial in FIR No. 10/2024 registered under Sections 8/21 and 27-A of the NDPS Act. Initially, he had approached the Court of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar “the trial court” seeking bail, while co-accused were granted bail, the petitioner was denied the same on the ground that he was alleged to be involved in an offence punishable under Section 27-A of the NDPS Act. After the filing of the charge-sheet and framing of charges on 28.03.2024, the petitioner filed another application for bail, which was allowed, and he was granted short-term bail vide order dated 26.04.2024. Thereafter, by order dated 14.05.2024, the petitioner was admitted to regular bail.

2. Subsequently, the respondent-prosecution moved an application seeking cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioner and also sought alteration of the charge on the ground that the offence under Section 27-A of the NDPS Act was attracted and, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to the concession of bail. Acting upon the said application, the Trial Court, vide order dated 03.07.2024, recalled and cancelled the bail earlier granted to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has challenged the same through the present petition, contending that a bare perusal of the charge-sheet does not disclose the commission of any offence under Section 27-A of the NDPS Act, as the essential ingredients of the said provision are completely absent from the material collected during investigation. According to the petitioner, the Trial Court had consciously granted him regular bail on 14.05.2024 after considering the material available on record, and thereafter no change in circumstances or supervening event occurred that could justify cancellation of the bail so granted. The petitioner asserts that the respondents misled the Court by invoking Section 27-A of the NDPS Act, although the allegations and evidence on record did not, even prima facie, make out an offence under the said provision.

3. The petitioner further contends that he was never in conscious possession of any contraband substance and that the prosecution has falsely implicated him by concocting a fabricated narrative. It is submitted that since the alleged recovery itself is disputed and forms a matter for trial, the same could not have been relied upon to deny or cancel the concession of bail. The petitioner also emphasizes that he has no previous criminal antecedents or involvement in similar offences and has throughout remained cooperative with the investigating agency as well as the trial proceedings. Accordingly, it is urged that the impugned order cancelling bail is unsustainable in law and deserves to be set aside.

4. Ld. counsel for the petitioner, while placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Rakesh Singh, (2022) 19 SCC 306, submitted that the quantity of contraband allegedly recovered, was only of intermediate quantity and that even if the quantities recovered from all the accused persons were taken cumulatively, the same would still not constitute a commercial quantity. It was contended that the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act were, therefore, not attracted. Ld. counsel further argued that there was no material on record to indicate that the petitioner had indulged in financing illicit traffic or harbouring offenders so as to attract the provisions of Section 27-A of the NDPS Act. According to him, the invocation of Section 27-A was wholly unwarranted and was resorted to only with a view to defeat the petitioner’s claim for bail.

5. The respondents have opposed the petition and submitted that on 30.01.2024, a police party laid a naka at Maloora near J&K Bank and intercepted a vehicle bearing Registration No. HR05BK-1149 which was proceeding from Maloora Bus Stand. During the search of the vehicle, certain incriminating articles, including a digital weighing scale, a broken sponge and