Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Mohd Abrar vs Ut Of J&K on 28 July, 2026
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
Item No.7
Regular List
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND
LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
Pronounced on:28.07.2026
Uploaded on: 30.07.2026
Whether the operative part
or full judgment is
pronounced: Full
Bail App No.34/2026
MOHD ABRAR
...PETITIONERS/APPELLANT(S)
Through: - Mr. Ahmad Javid, Advocate.
Vs.
UT OF J&K ...RESPONDENT(S)
Through: -
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
ORDER(ORAL)
1) The petitioner, through the medium of present petition,
is seeking bail in a case arising out of FIR No.136/2024 for
offences under Sections 8/22, 27A and 29 of NDPS Act
registered with Police Station, Safakadal, Srinagar, which is
stated to be pending before the Court of Special Judge (NDPS
Cases), Srinagar (hereinafter “the trial court”).
2) As per the prosecution case, on 08.11.2024, Police
Station, Safakadal, received a docket from the Naka Incharge
to the effect that during Naka checking, a triple riding
motorcycle was found coming from Soura towards
Bail App No.34/2025 Page 1 of 7
Safakadal. The motorcycle bearing registration No.JK01AF-
0207, was intercepted and the persons riding on the
motorcycle were identified as Aijaz Ahmad Ganai, Owais
Ahamd Gojree and Mir Roman. Upon subjecting them to
search, the aforesaid accused were found carrying a box
containing 140 bottles (100 ml each) of Codeine Phosphate
and Triprolidine Hydrochloride (WINCEREX). The three
accused failed to produce any legal justification for
carrying/transporting the aforesaid drugs and, accordingly,
the FIR came to be registered and investigation of the case
was set into motion. The three accused were put under
arrest. The recovered 140 bottles were seized and the
samples were drawn from the seized drug. The motorcycle
was also seized, whereafter statements of the witnesses
under Section 180 of BNSS were recorded. Upon arrest of
the accused persons, cash amounting to Rs.36,800/ and
mobile cell phones etc. were also recovered. The CDRs of the
cell phones of the three accused persons were obtained and
their bank account statements were also obtained.
3) During questioning of accused Mir Roman, he disclosed
that he was purchasing drugs from outside the State from
two persons, namely, Raju Gupta and Mohd Abrar
(petitioner herein) who are depositing the amount through
online mode directly in the bank accounts of aforenamed
Bail App No.34/2025 Page 2 of 7
three accused persons. The disclosure memo in this regard
was prepared in presence of Executive Magistrate. The bank
statements of all the accused persons were also obtained and
upon perusal of the same, it was revealed that accused Mir
Roman had credited an amount of Rs. 30,000 on 06.11.2024
in the bank account of the petitioner through online mode
and another amount of Rs.30,000 in the account of Raju
Gupta on 07.11.2024. Thus, the bank statements of the
petitioner and accused Raju Gupta corroborated the
disclosure statement made by accused Mir Roman. The call
details of the accused persons also confirmed that the
petitioner and other co-accused were in constant touch with
each other.
4) After conducting investigation of the case, offences
under Section 8/22, 27-A and 29 of NDPS Act were found
established against the accused including the petitioner
herein and the charge sheet was laid before the trial court.
5) Vide order dated 24.05.2025, the learned trial court
framed charges for offences under Section 8/22, 27-A and
29 of the NDPS Act against all the accused persons including
the petitioner herein.
6) It seems that the petitioner had approached the learned
trial court seeking bail, but his application for grant of bail
Bail App No.34/2025 Page 3 of 7
has been rejected by the learned trial court in terms of order
dated 30.12.2025.
7) The petitioner has sought bail on the grounds that four
witnesses examined by the trial court so far have not stated
anything against him and, as such, he is not connected with
the commission of the alleged crime. It has been further
contended that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents
and that he has been falsely implicated. It has also been
contended that the petitioner has been in custody for a
considerable period of time, as such, his right to liberty
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution has been
violated. The petitioner has further contended that no
recovery has been effected from him and merely because he
had bank transaction of Rs.30,000 with one of the accused,
does not show that he was part of the conspiracy.
8) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused record of the case including the trial court record.
9) The petitioner in the instant case has been charged for
offence under Section 8/22, 27-A and 29 of the NDPS Act.
Thus, he is alleged to be part of the conspiracy which led to
recovery of commercial quantity of the contraband drugs
from the possession of the co-accused. He has also been
charged for offence of financing illicit drug trafficking,
Bail App No.34/2025 Page 4 of 7
punishable under Section 27-A of the NDPS Act. Thus, the
rigour of Section 27 of the NDPS Act is applicable to the case
of the petitioner. It is to be noted here that the petitioner has
not challenged the order whereby charges have been framed
against him. Thus, unless the petitioner is able to persuade
this Court that there are reasonable grounds for believing
that he is not guilty of the offences for which he has been
charged, he cannot be granted bail.
10) In the present case, the record does show that there is
a financial transaction between the petitioner and one of the
accused from whose possession commercial quantity of
contraband substance has been recovered. There is also
material on record in the form of CDRs to show that the
petitioner has been in consistent touch with the co-accused
during the period when the contraband substance was
recovered from their possession. At this stage, only four
prosecution witnesses have been examined and 13
prosecution witnesses, most of whom are material
witnesses, are yet to be examined. Merely because the
Executive Magistrate, in whose presence the co-accused is
alleged to have made disclosure which led to the discovery of
the fact relating to financial transaction between the
petitioner and the co-accused, has not supported the
prosecution case so far as disclosure statement made by the
Bail App No.34/2025 Page 5 of 7
co-accused is concerned, does not offer a ground to grant
bail to the petitioner. It is to be noted that the disclosure
statement has been witnessed by as many as four witnesses,
including the Executive Magistrate. Merely because the
Executive Magistrate has not supported the disclosure
statement made by accused Mir Roman, the said statement
cannot be discarded at this stage as there are three more
witnesses to the disclosure statement and the said witnesses
are yet to be examined.
11) Have regard to the fact that most of the material
prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined and keeping in
view the material on record, as discussed hereinbefore, it
cannot be stated that there are no grounds for believing that
petitioner is not guilty of the alleged offences. Thus, the
requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not satisfied
in the present case so as to enable the petitioner to carve out
a case for grant of bail.
12) The contention of the petitioner that he has been in
custody for a considerable period of time, is also
misconceived for the reason that charges against the
petitioner and co-accused have been framed only on
24.05.2025 and during less than one year, four prosecution
witnesses have already been examined by the trial court upto
Bail App No.34/2025 Page 6 of 7
the date when the trial court record was summoned.
Therefore, there has been no lethargy either on the part of
the trial court or on the part of the prosecution in production
of witnesses. Thus, it cannot be stated that right of speedy
trial of the petitioner has been violated at this stage.
13) For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this
petition. The same is dismissed accordingly.
(Sanjay Dhar)
Judge
SRINAGAR
28.07.2026
“Bhat Altaf-Secy”
Whether the Order is speaking: YES
Whether the Order is reportable: YES/NO
Bail App No.34/2025 Page 7 of 7
