Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Ghulam Mohammad Bhat vs Through Police Station Chanapora on 31 July, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
Bail App No. 62/2026
Dated: 31st of July, 2026.
Muzaffar Ahmad Bhat, Age: 36 Years
S/O Gh. Mohd. Bhat
R/O Waza Bagh, Hyderpora Srinagar
Through his father
Ghulam Mohammad Bhat.
... Petitioner(s)
Through: -
Mr Zahoor A. Shah, Advocate.
V/s
Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir,
Through Police Station Chanapora, Srinagar.
... Respondent(s)
Through: –
Mr Mohsin-ul-Showkat Qadri, Sr. AAG with
M/S Haris Khan and Muneeb Yousuf, Advocates.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SHAHZAD AZEEM, JUDGE.
(JUDGMENT)
01. The Petitioner seeks bail in connection with the offences under
Sections 8/21, 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act [NDPS Act].
02. The Petitioner had earlier moved a similar application before
the Court of learned Special Judge (NDPS Cases), Srinagar [Trial Court],
which came to be rejected by Order dated 7 April 2026.
03. The principal ground urged is that, except for the confessional/
disclosure statement of the co-accused, Asim Hassan, recorded on 31 July
2023 before the Executive Magistrate 1st Class, Chanapora, Srinagar, there
is no material connecting the Petitioner with the commission of alleged
offenses.
Bail App No. 62/2026
Page 2 of 8
04. It is further contended that neither the initial investigation nor
the material collected and placed on record along with the Supplementary
Challan discloses any involvement of the Petitioner.
05. It is also urged that, since no recovery was effected from the
Petitioner, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted.
06. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner vehemently argued that the
confessional statement of the co-accused is the sole material against the
Petitioner and is inadmissible in evidence. Consequently, the Petitioner
cannot be made to suffer incarceration on the basis of such material. It was
further contended that the Trial Court has not recorded the statements of the
witnesses with due expedition, thereby denying the Petitioner right to a
speedy trial. The learned Counsel has heavily placed reliance on the
Judgment of this Court passed in “Rayees Ahmad Dar V. Union
Territory of J&K, Bail App. No. 05/2022″, so as to bring home the point
that confessional statement of a co-accused cannot form basis for
incarceration of the accused.
07. On the strength of the above, it is prayed that the Petitioner is
entitled to the concession of bail, having regard to the alleged sole reliance
on inadmissible material, the long period of incarceration and the delay in
the progress of the trial.
08. The Respondent has filed a detailed Reply opposing the
Petition. It is contended that the Petitioner is part of a larger conspiracy
involving the supply and trafficking of narcotic drugs into society with
particular deleterious consequences for the youth.
09. The Respondent has placed on record the instigative material
to demonstrate the Petitioner’s alleged involvement in the supply of
Codeine Phosphate, a manufactured narcotic drug prohibited under the
NDPS Act.
Bail App No. 62/2026
Page 3 of 8
10. The Respondent further submits that sufficient material has
been collected during investigation to establish the complicity of the
Petitioner, the relevant material shall be adverted to at the appropriate stage.
11. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the Trial
Court record.
12. The Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 27 July 2023, the
Station House Officer (SHO), Police Station Chanapora, along with other
police personnel, was conducting patrolling duty within the jurisdiction of
the said Police Station. During the course of patrolling, one Eco Sports
vehicle bearing registration No. DL12CB-4865 was found parked in a
suspicious manner at Gousia Colony, Lal Nagar, Methan, Chanapora, Lane
No. 02. One person was found sitting inside the vehicle in suspicious
circumstances. On being questioned, he disclosed his name as Asim Hassan
Bhat, Son of Ghulam Hassan Bhat, Resident of Gousia Colony, Chanapora.
Upon search of the vehicle, 90 bottles of Codeine Phosphate syrup alleged
to have been recovered. The said manufactured narcotic drug was found
concealed in the vehicle with the alleged intention of selling it to the youth,
so as to make them drug addicts.
13. Pursuant to the recovery, FIR No. 45/2023 under Sections 8/21
and 22 of the NDPS Act was registered and investigation commenced.
During investigation, three more persons, including the present Petitioner,
namely, Muzaffar Ahmed Bhat, were arrested. Preliminary investigation
revealed their alleged active involvement in the illicit drug trade.
14. During investigation, the principal accused-Asim Hassan was
produced before the Executive Magistrate 1st Class, Chanapora, Srinagar,
where he made a disclosure statement, inter alia, to the effect that he had
been purchasing Codeine Phosphate syrup from Muzaffar Ahmad Bhat @
Suja, Son of Ghulam Muhammad Bhat, Resident of Waza Bagh, Hyderpora
Bail App No. 62/2026
Page 4 of 8
(the Petitioner). It was further disclosed that he used to sell the bottles @
Rs. 500 per bottle. The disclosure statement further reveals that on 19 July
2023, the principal accused had purchased 40 bottles from the Petitioner
and transferred a sum of Rs. 27,000/- through M-Pay account No. 0503. It
is also alleged that, besides the Petitioner, co-accused-Fayaz Ahmad Malik,
Jahangir and Muhammad Yaseen were supplying the Codeine Phosphate to
the principal accused from time to time and the principal accused had
received 90 bottles of Codeine Phosphate from them, which were recovered
at the time of occurrence. In the same statement, the principal accused-
Asim Hassan has also given the details of the payments made to the
Petitioner and other co-accused, including the cell numbers through which
he remained in contact with the alleged suppliers.
15. It is not disputed that the Trial Court has so far recorded the
evidence of the witnesses cited in the original Challan. The Petitioner
having been named in the Supplementary Challan, the relevant witnesses
pertaining to the allegations against him are yet to enter the witness box.
Consequently, the plea that the witnesses examined so far have deposed
nothing against the Petitioner is misconceived and cannot be accepted at
this stage.
16. The Trial Court record reveals that 90 bottles of Codeine
Phosphate, each containing 100 ml, were allegedly recovered. The
submission of learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the recovered quantity
does not attract the rigors of Section 37 is, therefore, not sustainable.
17. There can be no quarrel with the proposition that a
confessional statement of a co-accused is inadmissible against accused and
that the Petitioner cannot be made to suffer solely on the basis of such a
statement. If that were the only material against the Petitioner, then the
continued incarceration would indeed amount to a violation of Article 21 of
the Constitution. However, on scrutiny of the record, it is found that the
Bail App No. 62/2026
Page 5 of 8
disclosure statement of the co-accused merely provided the initial
information regarding the alleged involvement of a wider network engaged
in drug peddling and the Petitioner was one of the alleged suppliers. The
Prosecution has sought to corroborate the alleged involvement of the
Petitioner by independent material in the shape of banking transactions and
the conversations allegedly exchanged between the co-accused and the
Petitioner. Call Detail Records (CDRs) have also been collected. These
materials are yet to be formally proved at the trial. At this interlocutory
stage, it would neither be proper nor desirable to pronounce upon their
ultimate admissibility or evidentiary value, as any such observation is likely
to prejudice either side.
18. In this regard, the Judgment relied by the learned Counsel for
the Petitioner passed in Rayees Ahmad Dar (supra) is distinguishable on
facts. In the said case, High Court was dealing with a case where the
Prosecution solely relied upon the confessional statement of the co-accused
and there was no other material available showing the complicity of the
accused. However, this is not the case on hand.
19. Apart from the disclosure statement of the principal accused,
there is prima facie material in the shape of banking transactions, CDRs and
other material collected during investigation which, if accepted at face
value, tends to show the complicity of the Petitioner in the commission of
the alleged offenses.
20. Prima facie, the Petitioner has been sent up for trial for
allegedly trafficking in a commercial quantity of a manufactured narcotic
substance pursuant to a well-knit conspiracy. The Trial Court, after drawing
prima facie satisfaction, has drawn up formal charges against the Petitioner
for the offenses punishable under Sections 8/21, 22 and 29 of the NDPS
Act.
Bail App No. 62/2026
Page 6 of 8
21. In “Narcotics Control Bureau V. Kashif, 2025 (2) Supreme
Court 268”, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the mandate of
Section 37 of the NDPS Act, observed that, where the offence is punishable
with minimum sentence of 10 years, the accused shall generally be not
released on bail and that “negation of bail is the rule and its grant is an
exception”. It was further held that the provisions of Section 37 are
mandatory in nature and that the recording of the twin findings
contemplated therein is a sine qua non for grant of bail. A similar view has
been expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “State of Meghalaya V.
Lalrintluanga Sailo and Anr., 2024 (6) Supreme 568”.
22. In “Union of India V. Vigin K. Varghese, 2025 SCC Online
(SC) 2440″, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed:
“17. The High Court then, on the strength of those
premises, recorded a finding that there exist reasonable grounds
to believe that the applicant is not guilty of the alleged offence,
treating prolonged incarceration and likely delay as the
justification for bail. Such a finding is not a casual observation.
It is the statutory threshold under Section 37 (1) (b) (ii), which
would disentitle the discretionary relief and grant of bail, must
necessarily rest on careful appraisal of the material available. A
conclusion of this nature, if returned without addressing the
prosecution’s assertions of subjective control and antecedent
involvement, risks trenching upon appreciation of evidence,
which would be in the domain of trial court at first instance.”
From the above dictum, it is pellucid that Section 37 of the
NDPS Act is mandatory. When the statutory conditions contained therein
are pitted against the plea of prolonged incarceration and likely delay in the
trial, the former must take precedence.
23. It is important to note that in “Narcotics Bureau V. Mohit
Agarwal, (2022) 18 SCC 374″, a three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that the length of the period of custody, or the fact that
the charge sheet has been filed, or even that the trial has not commenced, by
Bail App No. 62/2026
Page 7 of 8
themselves, are not considerations that can be treated as persuasive grounds
for grant of bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
24. Another important aspect that must receive priority is the
conduct of the Petitioner. Although, neither in the Petition nor during
arguments was it brought to the notice of the Court, but Record reveals that
the Petitioner is also accused in FIR No. 348/2019 of Police Station,
Parimpora, under Section 8/22 of the NDPS Act. The Trial Court record
further shows that the Petitioner had initially absconded, which delayed the
presentation of Challan. The conduct of the Petitioner, therefore, indicates
that there is real likelihood of abscondence or repetition of similar offences
if the concession of bail is granted at this stage.
25. It is well settled that while considering the question of bail, the
Court must, inter alia, take into account likelihood of the offence being
repeated as also the character, behavior, position and standing of the
accused. Reference, in this regard, may be made to the Judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Neeru Yadav V. State of UP & Anr., AIR
2015 SC 3703″.
26. Apart from the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the
statement of the co-accused merely furnished the initial information that
enabled the Investigating Officer to probe the larger conspiracy of regular
supply of the drug. The investigation, thereafter, succeeded in collecting
independent material in the form of bank transactions, CDRs and other
material prima facie showing the complicity of the Petitioner in dealing
with the manufactured narcotic drug. The principle laid in Mohit Agarwal
(supra), therefore, assumes significance. It is observed:
“18. Even dehors the confessional statement of the
respondent and the other co-accused recorded under Section
67 of the NDPS Act, which were subsequently retracted by
them, the other circumstantial evidence brought on record by
the appellant NCB ought to have dissuaded the High Court
Bail App No. 62/2026Page 8 of 8
from exercising its discretion in favour of the respondent and
concluding that there were reasonable grounds to justify that
he was not guilty of such an offence under the NDPS Act. We
are not persuaded by the submission made by the learned
counsel for the respondent and the observation made in the
impugned order that since nothing was found from the
possession of the respondent, he is not guilty of the offence
for which he has been charged. Such an assumption would be
premature at this stage.”
27. The Petitioner has previously been found involved in a similar
offence under the NDPS Act and has deliberately concealed this material
fact both before the learned Trial Court and before this Court. Having
regard to the stage of the trial, the conduct of the Petitioner and the larger
interests of society, the Petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail at
this stage.
28. For the foregoing reasons, the present Bail Application is
dismissed. It is, however, made clear that the observations made or findings
recorded hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion
with regard to the merits of the trial and that the same shall only be
confined to the disposal of the instant Petition.
(SHAHZAD AZEEM)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR
July 31st, 2026
“TAHIR”
i. Whether the Judgment is approved for reporting? Yes.
Tahir Manzoor Bhat
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document
