High Court Grants Bail to Businessman in NDPS Case, Citing Lack of Evidence for Financing Allegations

Court Decision and Context

In a significant ruling, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu has granted bail to Afraz Mehboob Tak, a 37-year-old hotel owner from Doda, in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. Delivered by Justice Mohd. Yousuf Wani on December 3, 2025, the judgment emphasizes that mere small financial transactions and uncorroborated statements under Section 67 NDPS Act do not constitute "reasonable grounds" for invoking the stringent bail bar under Section 37. Tak, arrested on March 10, 2025, for allegedly financing illicit drug trafficking, was released subject to conditions including personal and surety bonds of Rs. 1 lakh each.

The case stems from Crime No. 24/2024 registered by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), Jammu Zonal Unit, involving Sections 8/21, 22, 27A, and 29 of the NDPS Act. Tak's initial bail application was rejected by the Special Judge (NDPS Cases), Jammu, on April 9, 2025, prompting this successive petition under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

Case Overview

The allegations against Tak arose from the interception of co-accused Saqib Zaffar on November 24, 2024, near Kunjwani Chowk, Jammu. Zaffar was found carrying 7.221 kg of codeine-based cough syrup and 900 tramadol capsules (0.550 kg) in a bus from Delhi. Zaffar's voluntary statement under Section 67 NDPS Act implicated Tak as the intended receiver and financier, claiming Tak sent Rs. 15,000 via online payments for the contraband.

Tak's own statement, recorded on March 10, 2025, allegedly admitted to sending Rs. 5,000 on November 22, 2024, and Rs. 4,000 on November 8, 2024, to Zaffar for purchasing the drugs, along with contacting supplier Samar Zia via the IMO app. No contraband was recovered from Tak's possession or at his instance, and the supplier remains at large. The NCB filed a final complaint on May 22, 2025, against Tak and Zaffar, reserving liberty for a supplementary charge-sheet against Zia.

Tak, described as the sole breadwinner for his ailing parents, wife, and child, runs Tak Residency Hotel & Restaurant in Doda. He claims the transactions were for legitimate hotel supplies, given his acquaintance with Zaffar from the same locality.

Arguments Presented

Petitioner's Contentions

Tak's counsel, Mr. Prince Khanna, argued that Tak is innocent and falsely implicated based solely on inadmissible statements. Key points included: - No recovery from Tak's possession or at his instance, rendering Section 67 statements inadmissible under Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, and precedents like Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021). - Small transactions (Rs. 4,000 and Rs. 5,000) do not amount to "financing illicit trafficking" under Section 27A, as they lack continuity or regularity, citing Akashdeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2023). - Procedural lapses by NCB, such as non-compliance with Section 50 NDPS Act (no magistrate or gazetted officer present for search) and lack of independent witnesses. - Prolonged detention since March 2025 equates to pre-trial punishment, violating Article 21 rights. Tak has no prior antecedents and is unlikely to flee or tamper.

Reliance was placed on cases like State of West Bengal v. Rakesh Singh (2022 SCC OnLine SC 828), where bail was granted absent recovery and for intermediate quantities, and Saddam Hussain Qureshi v. Union of India (2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1096), stressing no direct link via statements alone.

Respondent's Rebuttal

The NCB, represented by Deputy Solicitor General Mr. Vishal Sharma, opposed bail citing the heinous nature of NDPS offenses involving commercial quantities and Section 27A (financing under conspiracy). They argued: - Tak's and Zaffar's statements, corroborated by bank records and call data, prove involvement in procurement via IMO app. - Section 37 bar applies due to commercial quantity under Sections 21/22 and Section 27A, with risk of absconding or recidivism amid rising drug menace. - Leniency could encourage traffickers, and prior trial court rejection warrants dismissal.

The NCB highlighted the recovery's scale and societal impact, urging strict application of NDPS provisions.

Legal Precedents and Principles Applied

The court extensively reviewed NDPS bail jurisprudence, distinguishing "reasonable grounds" under Section 37 as more than suspicion but less than proof. It applied Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40, emphasizing bail as a right unless necessity demands custody, and Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT Delhi (2001) 4 SCC 280, weighing liberty against societal interests.

Key precedents included: - State of West Bengal v. Rakesh Singh (2022): Section 27A questionable without recovery; CCTV/CDR insufficient alone. - Mohd Aslam Chiko v. NCB (2023 SCC OnLine Del 5733): Section 67 statements inadmissible post- Tofan Singh ; financial links unrelated. - Jasbir Singh v. NCB (2023 SCC OnLine Del 134): Bank transactions between acquaintances do not prove conspiracy without corroboration. - Yugraj Singh v. UT of J&K (2025): Disclosure statements inadmissible without discovery of facts; CDR alone raises mere suspicion. - Akashdeep Singh (2023): Solitary transactions not "financing"; Section 37 rigors inapplicable.

The court clarified that statements under Section 67 are inadmissible unless leading to recovery (Section 27 BSA), and small, isolated transfers do not establish conspiracy or financing under Section 27A, which requires ongoing illicit trade support.

Pivotal Excerpts from the Judgment

On evidence sufficiency: "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... No conspiracy can be attributed to have been hatched by him in the facts and circumstances of the case."

On Section 37 bar: "The words 'reasonable grounds' cannot be read to mean proved... It would necessarily mean such grounds or material that would prima facie enable a person of ordinary prudence to believe that the accused is or is not guilty."

Balancing liberty: Citing Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980 AIR SC 1632), the court noted bail ensures appearance without punitive intent, rejecting pre-trial detention as "conviction."

Final Decision and Implications

Justice Wani ruled there are no reasonable grounds for Tak's involvement, absent recovery or tangible evidence linking transactions to drugs. Bail was granted on December 3, 2025, with conditions: punctual trial attendance, no witness tampering, no leaving J&K without permission, and no repeat offenses. Sureties of Rs. 50,000 each from relatives were required.

This decision reinforces that NDPS's stringent provisions cannot justify indefinite detention on weak evidence, protecting personal liberty under Article 21. It signals courts' caution against over-reliance on uncorroborated statements in financing cases, potentially aiding similar bail pleas while underscoring the need for robust proof in drug-related conspiracies. The trial against Tak and Zaffar continues, with the NCB pursuing the absconding supplier.