Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Reserved On: 06.02.2026 vs Narcotic Control Bureau on 13 February, 2026
Author: Rajnesh Oswal
Bench: Rajnesh Oswal
2026:JKLHC-JMU:305
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Bail App No. 261/2025
CrlM No. 1850/2025
c/w
CRM(M) No. 999/2025
CrlM No. 1851/2025
Reserved on: 06.02.2026
Pronounced on: 13.02.2026
Uploaded on: 13.02.2026
Whether the operative part or full judgment
is pronounced: Full Judgment.
Mathupotra Sohil
Age 28 Years S/O Arif Bhai R/O
Jangleshwar Society, Street No. 14,
Jangleshwar, Rajkot, Gujrat-361002
.....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. M. A. Bhat, Advocate.
vs
Narcotic Control Bureau, Jammu ..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Vishal Sharma, (Sr. Advocate) DSGI
With Mr. Eishan Dadichi, CGSC.
Coram: HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
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.
Page 1 of 15 Bail App No. 261/2025
c/w
CRM(M) No. 999/2025
2026:JKLHC-JMU:305
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
Page 2 of 15 Bail App No. 261/2025
c/w
CRM(M) No. 999/2025
2026:JKLHC-JMU:305
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 Indiat hrough 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
Page 3 of 15 Bail App No. 261/2025
c/w
CRM(M) No. 999/2025
2026:JKLHC-JMU:305
Yasin Inayatali, Mitesh C Bagda, Bhatti Feroj and Mathupotra Sohil
(petitioner) were smuggling huge quantity of contraband from Kashmir to
Mumbai via Samba/Gagwal area by a private vehicle bearing registration
No. GJ 18 EA 0002 and they were to reach Samba/Gagwal area between
0600 Hrs to 0800 Hrs on 30.03.2024. On receipt of the said information, the
same was recorded by Sh. Ram Shankar Paswan, Sub Inspector, NCB,
Jammu and was placed before Sh. Harish Kumar, Assistant Director, NCB
on 29.03.2024 for further directions. Assistant Director discussed the matter
with Sh. Ram Shankar Paswan and detailed the team consisting of Sh.
Ravinder Kumar Bhagat, Sub-Inspector, Sh. Gurmeet Singh, S. A. Sh.
Ravinder, S. A. Sh. Vasdev Bhardwaj, Hav. Sh. Ravinder Kumar Sepoy,
Sh. Anuj Kumar, Sepoy, Sh. Madan Lal, Driver and Sh. Sandeep Sepoy as
driver and issued order dated 29.03.2024 along with search authorisation in
the name of Sh. Ravinder Kumar Bhagat, Sub-Inspector, who collected the
seal “Narcotics Control Bureau Jammu Zonal Unit 2” from Sh. Harish
Kumar, Assistant Director, NCB, Jammu. Accordingly, on 30.03.2024, at
about 0430 Hrs. the NCB team left from Jammu for Samba/Ghagwal and
reached at NH 44, Police Naka Tapyal near Police Station Ghagwal at
about 0540 Hrs. Thereafter, at about 0735 Hrs. the NCB Team noticed the
suspected vehicle bearing registration No. GJ 18 EA 0002 coming from
Jammu towards Naka Tapyal. Sh. Ravinder Kumar Bhagat and NCB Team
signalled the driver of the said vehicle to stop and get the vehicle parked on
side of the naka at National Highway 44, District Samba. The driver
disclosed his name as Qureshi Yasin Inayat Ali and his other three
companions disclosed their names as Mitesh C Bagda, Bhatti Feroj and
Page 4 of 15 Bail App No. 261/2025
c/w
CRM(M) No. 999/2025
2026:JKLHC-JMU:305
Mathupotra Sohil (petitioner). During search of the suspected vehicle
bearing registration No. GJ 18 EA 0002 in presence of the independent
witnesses and suspected persons, NCB team recovered 02 packets having
brown coloured packing tape, which were concealed in the left front
window of the said car and 06 packets of suspected contraband concealed
in the base of the wiper of front glass of the said vehicle. The packets were
opened and during test, were found positive for Charas. The total weight of
the moisture charas was found to be 11.355 Kilograms along with packing
material. Thereafter, panchnama was prepared and after completing the
seizure process, panchnama was read over to all the accused persons in
presence of the independent witnesses and then the panchnama was signed
by all the suspected persons, both independent witnesses and the Seizing
Officer-Sh. Ravinder Kumar Bhagat, Sub-Inspector. The Seizing Officer
deposited the seized material in the NCB Malkhana, Jammu on 30.03.2024
and took Godown receipt on 30.03.2024 from Sh. Harish Kumar, Assistant
Director, NCB, Jammu vide Godown entry No. 92. Statements of the
accused were recorded and on 31.03.2024, a team was detailed by Sh.
Harish Kumar to conduct follow up action against the suspect Riyaz Ahmad
Dagga. Riyaz Ahmad Dagga appeared before Sh. Koushal Kumar,
Investigating Officer on 02.04.2024 and his statement was recorded. He
disclosed the name of Umar Batla. Riyaz Ahmad Dagga identified the four
accused who were arrested on 31.03.2024. It was Umar who deposited six
lakh rupees for charas in the account of Aizaz Ahmad Dagga i.e. brother-in-
law of Riyaz Ahmad Dagga. The samples were sent to CRCL, New Delhi
Pusa Road vide letter dated 02.04.2024 and report was received from
Page 5 of 15 Bail App No. 261/2025
c/w
CRM(M) No. 999/2025
2026:JKLHC-JMU:305
CRCL on 27.04.2024. The test report confirmed that each sample tested
positive for Charas. Efforts were made to conduct search of house of Aizaz
Ahmad Dagga and notice was also issued for his appearance before the
Investigating Officer, but he did not appear. Statements of Mitesh C Bagda
and Mathupotra Sohil were recorded under Section 164 CrPC before the
learned Additional Special Mobile Magistrate, Samba on 24.04.2024 and
27.05.2024 respectively, wherein they deposed that the seized drugs were
placed by Riyaz Ahmad Dagga in the vehicle bearing registration No. GJ
18 EA 0002. During investigation, it was found that Mobile No.
XXXXXXXXXX was being used by Mohd. Umar, registered in the name
of Majerul Hoque. Notice under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was also
issued to Majerul Hoque, but he did not appear before the Investigating
Officer. It was also found that another Mobile No. XXXXXXXXXX was
used by Mohd. Umar, registered in the name of Rizwan Hussain Sayed.
Notice under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was also issued to Rizwan
Hussain Sayed, but he did not appear before the Investigating Officer.
Mobile No. XXXXXXXXXX was found to be used by Riyaz Ahmad
Dagga, registered in the name of Mymoona Beguam. Notice under Section
67 of the NDPS Act was also issued to Mymoona Beguam, but she also did
not appear before the Investigating Officer. It is also stated that CDRs in
respect of different mobile numbers were obtained and it was found that all
the accused were connected with each other.
7. During investigation it was established that in pursuance of the criminal
conspiracy, Khureshi Yasin Inayatali procured 11 Kilograms of Charas
from Riyaz Ahmad Dagga, which was financed by Mohd. Umar @ Umar
Page 6 of 15 Bail App No. 261/2025
c/w
CRM(M) No. 999/2025
2026:JKLHC-JMU:305
@ Umar Batla on whose behalf Khureshi Yasin Inayatali transacted in the
account of Aijaz Ahmad Dagga who is the brother-in-law of Riyaz Ahmad
Dagga. Riyaz Ahmad Dagga kept the seized charas in cavity of the seized
vehicle bearing registration No. GJ 18 EA 0002, which was to be delivered
at parking place of Ajmer Dargah by Khureshi Yasin Inayatali to Mohd.
Umar Sheikh. Mitesh C Bagda, Bhatti Feroj and Mathupotra Sohil came
along with Khureshi Yasin Inayatali for consumption of Charas. The
entry/exit register of Shreeza Hotel reveals that Khureshi Yasin Inayatali,
Mitesh C Bagda, Bhatti Feroj and Mathupotra Sohil stayed on 29.03.2024
at Srinagar and it clearly proved that they were collectively involved in the
criminal conspiracy for procuring, possessing, transportation, financing of
the contraband and had committed offences punishable under Sections
8. It is settled law that while considering the issue of framing charge against
the accused or his discharge, the Court can neither examine the material
brought on record in detail nor examine the sufficiency of the material to
establish the offence against the accused. In „State v. Anup Kumar
Srivastava, (2017) 15 SCC 560, the Hon‟ble Apex Court has held that the
court can discharge the accused if the court is of the opinion that no offence
is made out, but the court cannot examine the material in detail brought on
record. The relevant paras are reproduced as under:
“25. Framing of charge is the first major step in a criminal trial where
the court is expected to apply its mind to the entire record and
documents placed therewith before the court. Taking cognizance of an
offence has been stated to necessitate an application of mind by the
court but framing of charge is a major event where the court considers
the possibility of discharging the accused of the offence with which he
is charged or requiring the accused to face trial. There are different
categories of cases where the court may not proceed with the trial and
may discharge the accused or pass such other orders as may bePage 7 of 15 Bail App No. 261/2025
c/w
CRM(M) No. 999/2025
2026:JKLHC-JMU:305necessary keeping in view the facts of a given case. In a case where,
upon considering the record of the case and documents submitted
before it, the court finds that no offence is made out or there is a legal
bar to such prosecution under the provisions of the Code or any other
law for the time being in force and there exists no ground to proceed
against the accused, the court may discharge the accused. There can be
cases where such record reveals the matter to be so predominantly of a
civil nature that it neither leaves any scope for an element of
criminality nor does it satisfy the ingredients of a criminal offence
with which the accused is charged. In such cases, the court may
discharge him or quash the proceedings in exercise of its powers
under the provisions.
30. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant State that
the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction while quashing the order of
charge passed by the Special Court, CBI Cases. The legal position is
well settled that at the stage of framing of charge the trial court is
not to examine and assess in detail the materials placed on record
by the prosecution nor is it for the court to consider the
sufficiency of the materials to establish the offence alleged against
the accused persons. At the stage of charge the court is to examine
the materials only with a view to be satisfied that a prima facie
case of commission of offence alleged hasbeen made out against
the accused persons. It is also well settled that when the petition is
filed by the accused under Section 482 of the Code seeking for the
quashing of charge framed against him the court should not
interfere with the order unless there are strong reasons to hold
that in the interest of justice and to avoid abuse of the process of
the court, a charge framed against the accused needs to be
quashed. Such an order can be passed only in exceptional cases
and on rare occasions. The court is required to consider the “record
of the case” and documents submitted therewith and, after hearing the
parties, may either discharge the accused or where it appears to the
court and in its opinion there is ground for presuming that the accused
has committed an offence, it shall frame the charge. Once the facts
and ingredients of the section exist, then the court would be right in
presuming that there is ground to proceed against the accused and
frame the charge accordingly. This presumption is not a presumption
of law as such. The satisfaction of the court in relation to the existence
of constituents of an offence and the facts leading to that offence is a
sine qua non for exercise of such jurisdiction. It may even be weaker
than a prima facie case.”
(emphasis added)
9. In „State v. R. Soundirarasu, 2022 SCC Online SC 1150‟, the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court after taking note of the various provisions contained in the
Criminal Procedure Code for discharge of the accused, observed as under:
56. Despite the slight variation in the provisions with regard to
discharge under the three pairs of Sections referred to above, the
settled legal position is that the stage of framing of charge under
either of these three situations, is a preliminary one and the test of
“prima facie” case has to be applied — if the trial court is satisfied
that a prima facie case is made out, charge has to be framed.
57. The nature of evaluation to be made by the court at the stage of
framing of charge came up for consideration of this Court in OnkarPage 8 of 15 Bail App No. 261/2025
c/w
CRM(M) No. 999/2025
2026:JKLHC-JMU:305Nath Mishra v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2008) 2 SCC 561, and
referring to its earlier decisions in the State of Maharashtra v. Som
Nath Thapa, (1996) 4 SCC 659, and the State of M.P. v. Mohanlal
Soni, (2000) 6 SCC 338, it was held that at that stage, the Court
has to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the
factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged and it is not
expected to go deep into the probative value of the materials on
record. The relevant observations made in the judgment are as
follows:
“11. It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge the
court is required to evaluate the material and
documents on record with a view to finding out if the
facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value,
disclosed the existence of all the ingredients constituting
the alleged offence. At that stage, the court is not
expected to go deep into the probative value of the
material on record. What needs to be considered is
whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence
has been committed and not a ground for convicting the
accused has been made out. At that stage, even strong
suspicion founded on material which leads the court to
form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the
factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged
would justify the framing of charge against the accused
in respect of the commission of that offence.”
(emphasis added)
10. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court, after considering its various pronouncements,
has further delineated the principles to be applied by the Court while
considering issue of framing charge/discharge in „Ghulam Hassan Beigh
v. Mohd. Maqbool Magrey, (2022) 12 SCC 657‟ and the relevant para is
reproduced as under:
“27. Thus from the aforesaid, it is evident that the trial court is
enjoined with the duty to apply its mind at the time of framing of
charge and should not act as a mere post office. The endorsement on
the chargesheet presented by the police as it is without applying its
mind and without recording brief reasons in support of its opinion is
not countenanced by law. However, the material which is required
to be evaluated by the court at the time of framing charge should
be the material which is produced and relied upon by the
prosecution. The sifting of such material is not to be so
meticulous as would render the exercise a mini trial to find out
the guilt or otherwise of the accused. All that is required at this
stage is that the court must be satisfied that the evidence
collected by the prosecution is sufficient to presume that the
accused has committed an offence. Even a strong suspicion
would suffice. Undoubtedly, apart from the material that is placed
before the court by the prosecution in the shape of final report in
terms of Section 173CrPC, the court may also rely upon any other
evidence or material which is of sterling quality and has direct
bearing on the charge laid before it by the prosecution.”
Page 9 of 15 Bail App No. 261/2025
c/w
CRM(M) No. 999/2025
2026:JKLHC-JMU:305
(emphasis added)
11. It is contended by the petitioner that he was simply co-occupant of the
vehicle and as such, had no role in procurement, concealment,
transportation or financing of the alleged contraband seized from the
vehicle mentioned above. This contention of the petitioner, in fact, is a
defence, and at this stage, the defence of the petitioner cannot be
considered. As already mentioned above, all the accused persons resided in
Hotel Shreeza on 29.03.2024 and prior information was received by the
NCB, Jammu regarding transportation of contraband by all the four accused
persons, namely, Khureshi Yasin Inayatali, Mitesh C Bagda, Bhatti Feroj
and Mathupotra Sohil. This information led to the successful apprehension
of the four persons mentioned in the information along with contraband.
The petitioner has admitted that he was accompanying the other three
accused persons. Interestingly, he filed an application before the learned
trial court as to whether the prosecution had cited him as a witness or
arrayed him as an accused and the said application came to be dismissed
vide order dated 04.06.2025 and after, hearing the petitioner and other
accused persons, they were charged for commission of offences punishable
under Sections 8/20/25/27-A/29 of NDPS Act.
12. The contention of the petitioner that the learned trial court has relied upon
the statements made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act for the purpose of
charging him is belied by the observation made by the learned trial court in
Para 17 of the order impugned, wherein the learned trial court has observed
as under:
“I am not oblivious about non-admissibility of the statements of
the accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act before NCBPage 10 of 15 Bail App No. 261/2025
c/w
CRM(M) No. 999/2025
2026:JKLHC-JMU:305Sleuths, but the documentary evidence in the guise of CDRs of
Cell Numbers of the accused, the bank transactions do point a
finger towards the culpability of the accused prima facie for
commission of offences as indicated in the complaint.”
13. These observations were made after taking note of the allegations levelled
by the respondent against the petitioner and other accused persons, as such,
there is no force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the learned trial court has relied upon the statements made
under Section 67 of the NDPS Act.
14. A perusal of the order impugned reveals that the learned trial court also
rejected the contention of the petitioner that he had simply accompanied the
other accused persons for consumption of Charas, with an observation that
this contention is not sustainable because for simply consumption of
Charas, accused would have never accompanied the co-accused in the
vehicle with such huge quantity of Charas weighing 11 Kilograms. This is
quite unbelievable that a person would travel from Gujarat to Srinagar just
for consuming charas.
15. All the accused were apprehended together travelling in the vehicle
pursuant to secret information carrying the names of all the four accused
including the petitioner and their staying together at Hotel Shreeza at
Srinagar, subsequent recovery of charas from the vehicle in which all the
four accused (including the petitioner) were travelling and at this stage
there is sufficient material for connecting the petitioner with the
commission of alleged offences.
16. In Madan Lal vs. State of HP, (2003) 7 SCC 465, though the judgment
was rendered after the trial, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court upheld the
Page 11 of 15 Bail App No. 261/2025
c/w
CRM(M) No. 999/2025
2026:JKLHC-JMU:305
conviction of the accused and observed that the question of “conscious
possession” has to be determined with reference to the factual
backdrop of each case. The Court held that from the evidence on
record, it was discernible that all the accused were travelling together
in a vehicle, were known to each other, and had not explained as to
how they happened to travel together from the same destination in a
non-public vehicle. These circumstances were held sufficient to
establish conscious possession.
17. In view of the guardrails laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India
for the purpose of considering the issue of charge/discharge, this Court is of
the considered view that all the contentions, as raised by the petitioner, at
the most amount to defence, which the petitioner is well within his right to
raise before the learned trial court during trial, but on these grounds, the
petitioner cannot be discharged.
18. I have gone through the order dated 07.08.2025 passed by the learned
Principal Sessions Judge (Special Court under NDPS Act), Samba, whereby
the petitioner along with other accused has been charged for commission of
offences punishable under Sections 8/20/25/27-A/29 of the NDPS Act and I
do not find any reason to interfere with the well- reasoned order.
19. In view of the above, the present petition is found to be misconceived, and
the same is dismissed along with the connected application.
Bail App No. 261/2025
1. The petitioner is seeking bail in the case Crime No. 03/2024 of NCB,
Jammu on the similar grounds as mentioned above.
Page 12 of 15 Bail App No. 261/2025
c/w
CRM(M) No. 999/2025
2026:JKLHC-JMU:305
2. It is stated that the order, whereby the bail application of the petitioner has
been rejected, has overlooked the non-compliance of mandatory statutory
requirements under the NDPS Act.
3. The respondent has filed response, thereby narrating the factual aspects of
the case, as already mentioned above. It is stated that in view of the bar
contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail cannot be granted to the
petitioner.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Record depicts that the petitioner earlier had approached the learned trial
court for grant of bail, however, the same was rejected vide order dated
29.08.2025.
6. As already mentioned above, the petitioner has been charged for
commission of offences under Sections 8/20/25/27-A/29 of the NDPS Act.
The quantity of the contraband allegedly recovered from the car is
commercial quantity and rigours of Section 37 of NDPS Act are squarely
applicable in the instant case. In „Union of India vs VIGINN K.
Varghese“, 2025 LiveLaw(SC) 1101, the Hon‟ble Apex Court set aside
the order granting bail with following observations:
18. This Court ordinarily shows deference to the discretion exercised
by the High Court while considering the grant of bail. However,
offences involving commercial quantity of narcotic drugs stand on a
distinct statutory footing. Section 37 enacts a specific embargo on
the grant of bail and obligates the Court to record satisfaction on
the twin requirements noticed above, in addition to the ordinary
tests under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(emphasis added)
Page 13 of 15 Bail App No. 261/2025
c/w
CRM(M) No. 999/2025
2026:JKLHC-JMU:305
7. In “Union of India v. Ajay Kumar Singh“, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 346,
the Hon‟ble Apex Court cancelled the bail granted to the respondent-
accused with the following observations:
17. The quantity of “ganja” recovered is admittedly of commercial
quantity. The High Court has not recorded any finding that the
respondent-accused is not prima facie guilty of the offence
alleged and that he is not likely to commit the same offence when
enlarged on bail rather his antecedents are indicative that he is a
regular offender. In the absence of recording of such satisfaction by
the court, we are of the opinion that the High Court manifestly erred
in enlarging the respondent-accused on bail.
(emphasis added)
8. In „State of Meghalaya v. Lalrintluanga Sailo‟, (2024) 15 SCC 36, the
Hon‟ble Apex Court has observed as under:
8. As relates the twin conditions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the
NDPS Act viz. that, firstly, there are reasonable grounds for
believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and,
secondly, he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail it was
held therein that they are cumulative and not alternative. Satisfaction
of existence of those twin conditions had to be based on the
“reasonable grounds”, as referred above.
9. In the decision in State of Kerala v. Rajesh [State of
Kerala v. Rajesh, (2020) 12 SCC 122] , after reiterating the broad
parameters laid down by this Court to be followed while
considering an application for bail moved by an accused
involved in the offences under the NDPS Act, in para 18 thereof
this Court held that the scheme of Section 37 of the NDPS Act
would reveal that the exercise of power to grant bail in such
cases is not only subject to the limitations contained under
Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but also subject
to the limitation placed by Section 37(1)(b)(ii) NDPS Act.
Further it was held that in case one of the two conditions
thereunder is not satisfied the ban for granting bail would
operate.
10. Thus, the provisions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS
Act and the decisions referred supra revealing the consistent
view of this Court that while considering the application for bail
made by an accused involved in an offence under the NDPS Act
a liberal approach ignoring the mandate under Section 37 of the
NDPS Act is impermissible. Recording a finding mandated under
Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which is sine qua non for granting bail
to an accused under the NDPS Act cannot be avoided while passing
orders on such applications.
(emphasis added)
9. In view of the facts, as narrated above, this Court, at this stage, in absence
of any evidence to the contrary, is not in a position to return a finding that
Page 14 of 15 Bail App No. 261/2025
c/w
CRM(M) No. 999/2025
2026:JKLHC-JMU:305
there are sufficient grounds to believe that the petitioner is not guilty of
commission of offences, of which he has been charged.
10. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner
has not been able to make out a case for grant of bail.
11. Accordingly, the instant bail application is found to be misconceived and
the same is dismissed along with the connected application.
(RAJNESH OSWAL)
JUDGE
Jammu
13.02.2026
Sahil Padha
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
Page 15 of 15 Bail App No. 261/2025
c/w
CRM(M) No. 999/2025
