Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Abdul Rashid Kohli vs Union Territory Of Jammu & Kashmir on 29 April, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
Bail App No. 194/2025
Reserved On: 18th of April, 2026.
Pronounced On: 29th of April, 2026.
Uploaded On: 29th of April, 2026.
Whether the operative part or
full Judgment is pronounced: Full.
Abdul Rashid Kohli, Age: 45 Years
S/O Satter Mohammad Kohli
R/O Dragger, Karnah, Kupwara
Through his brother, namely,
Mangta Kohli.
... Petitioner(s)
Through: -
Mr S. T. Hussain, Senior Advocate with
Ms Nida Nazir, Advocate.
V/s
Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir,
Through SHO, Police Station,
Rajbagh, Srinagar.
... Respondents
Through: –
Mr Faheem Nisar Shah, Government Advocate vice
Mr Mohsin-ul-Showkat Qadri, Sr. AAG.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE M. A. CHOWDHARY, JUDGE.
(JUDGMENT)
01. The Petitioner, on being aggrieved of the Order dated 5 th of
August, 2025 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge (NDPS) Cases,
Srinagar (“the Trial Court” for brevity); whereby his bail plea has been
rejected, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking his enlargement
on bail in a case arising out of FIR No. 17/2023 registered at Police Station
Rajbagh, Srinagar, for the commission of offences punishable under
Sections 8/21, 27-A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “the NDPS Act“) and
Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), wherein the Petitioner, along
Bail App No. 194/2025Page 2 of 11
with other co-accused, is facing trial for the commission of aforementioned
offences before the Trial Court.
Pleadings:
02. The Petitioner, by virtue of the instant Petition, seeks bail,
mainly on the grounds that the rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not
applicable in the case of the Petitioner; that, after taking cognizance, the
learned Special Judge was transferred, as such, the successor had to hold a
de novo trial which was mandatory and that this procedure has not been
followed in the instant case rendering the trial as vitiated; that, in view of
the accusation of cross-border smuggling, the investigating agency had to
invoke Section 120-B of CrPC which has not been pressed and even the
police report does not mention where the conspiracy was hatched, in which
District of Jammu & Kashmir it was hatched, where it was executed and on
what material such an inference was drawn; that the Investigating Officer,
being an unauthorized person, did not follow the provisions of Section 52-A
of the NDPS Act; and that the trial is being conducted for the last more than
two years, as such, there was long incarceration of the Petitioner.
03. In opposition, the Respondents have filed their Objections,
inter alia, stating therein that the accused persons, including the Petitioner
herein, pursuant to the aforementioned criminal conspiracy, have smuggled
into India, possessed, sold, purchased, transported and financed the
commercial quantity of narcotic substance (Heroine) and have committed
offences under various Sections of law, whereafter, the charge sheet of the
case was produced before the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge,
Srinagar on 9th of September, 2023 which is under trial and many witnesses
are yet to be examined; that the Petitioner was found involved in acquiring
and transporting of huge consignment of illegal contraband substance
(Heroin) and selling the same among the youth of the society; that, if the
Petitioner is released on bail, he may again indulge in such activities as he
is residing close to the international border linked with POK; that the
Petitioner is involved in an offence against the society at large which has
Bail App No. 194/2025Page 3 of 11
destroyed the youth beyond any repair, inasmuch as, the menace of drug
addiction has engulfed the society and is creating havoc to the families
which needs to be dealt with a strong fist; and that there are reasonable
grounds for believing that the Petitioner would jump the concessions of
bail, if granted to him by the Court, as such, the application merits rejection.
Submissions/ Arguments of the parties:
04. Mr S. T. Hussain, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms
Nida Nazir, Advocate, appearing for the Petitioner, submits that there has
been no recovery of any contraband substance from the Petitioner in the
instant case and that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the
Petitioner at all; that the witnesses so far produced by the Prosecution
before the learned Trial Court did not specifically attribute anything
towards the Petitioner qua criminal conspiracy of smuggling, possessing,
purchasing and selling the contraband substance and that mere disclosure
statements from other accused cannot amount to conspiracy; and that the
Petitioner is entitled to grant of bail in view of his long incarceration of
almost three years.
05. Mr Faheem Nisar Shah, the learned Government Advocate,
appearing vice Mr Mohsin-ul-Showkat Qadri, learned Senior Additional
Advocate General, on behalf of the Respondent-UT, ex-adverso,
vehemently argued that the charges have been framed against the accused/
Petitioner herein and that the trial of the case is going on before the Trial
Court with 18 witnesses out of 33 having been examined thus far; that it has
come on evidence before the Trial Court through photographs that the
Petitioner was found weighing the contraband substance in the rented
accommodation, besides there being Call Detail Records (CDRs) from his
Mobile Phone, seized as A-4, in the name of the Petitioner relating to the
conspiracy involved in the case; that Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be
invoked only in a case where adequate material has been produced before
the Trial Court and not on bald grounds/ assertions; and that long
Bail App No. 194/2025Page 4 of 11
incarceration of the Petitioner cannot, in any manner, be an automatic
ground for grant of bail in favour of the Petitioner.
06. Heard learned Counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings on
record and considered the matter.
Factual Background:
07. The case of the Prosecution-Respondent herein, as emanates
from the perusal of the record, is that, on 6th of April, 2023, Police Station,
Rajbagh received an information through reliable sources to the effect that
at Kursoo Bund, Rajbagh, two persons, namely, Sajad Ahmad Badana S/O
Aijaz Ahmad Badana R/O Nechaya Karnah, Kupwara and Zaheer Ahmad
Tanch S/O Alam Deen Tanch R/O Amrohi Karnah, Kupwara, who are
living at Kursoo, Rajbagh in a rented accommodation, are dealing with
contraband substances, having procured the same illegally and transported
from Karnah to Rajbagh, Srinagar for sale purposes; that, on receipt of this
information, a case vide FIR No. 17/2023 under Sections 8/21/29 of the
NDPS Act was registered at Police Station Rajbagh.
08. The Police party, upon reaching Kursoo Bund, verified the
location of the concerned house and it came to limelight that the said house
belonged to one Gh. Mohammad Dar S/O Ab. Khaliq Dar R/O Kursoo
Bund, Rajbagh, who has rented out the said three storied house and it was
established that Sajad Ahmad Badana S/O Ajaz Ahmad Badana R/O
Nechaya Karnah, Kupwara is putting up as a tenant in the set of two rooms
and one kitchen bathroom in the second storey of the house; that, upon
reaching the said location, two persons, who disclosed their identity as
Sajad Ahmad Badana S/O Ajaz Ahmad Badana R/O Nechaya Karnah,
Kupwara and Zaheer Ahmad Tanch S/O Alamdin Tanch R/O Amrohi,
Karnah were found present in the room, whereafter notice under Section 50
of the NDPS Act was served upon both of them in presence of Magistrate
and witnesses; and that, accordingly, search was carried out which was
photographed and, during the search of the room, a grey colour bag along
Bail App No. 194/2025Page 5 of 11
with another black colour bag, filled with 11 polyethene packets containing
contraband Heroin like substance were recovered hidden from under a bed.
09. During further search, another bag containing Indian currency
of 200, 500 and 2000 denomination notes was found hidden under the same
bed; that the seized contraband was weighed on the electronic scale
(Kanda) which was found to be 11 Kgs in total and each packet of Heroin
was weighed separately and found 01 Kg each, besides, the seized cash was
also counted and found as Rs. 11,82,500/- total, in presence of a Magistrate
and other witnesses and, accordingly, seizure memo/ Fard-e-Wazan
(Weighing Memo) was prepared on spot; that, during the personal search of
Sajad Ahmad Badhana (Accused No.1) and Zaheer Ahmad Tanch (Accused
No. 2), three Mobile Phones; one from Accused No.01 bearing IMEI
No.356890804732490 and two from Accused No. 2 bearing IMEI No.
860109061946540 and No. 861175053251870, along with some cash and
identity cards, Bank ATM cards were recovered from their possession; and,
accordingly, search memo was prepared, international WhatsApp contacts
found in the Mobile Phones were forwarded to ESU South, Srinagar for
account preservation and EDR, phones were sealed on spot and marked as
exhibit C1, C2 and C3.
10. The aforementioned accused persons, upon being questioned,
revealed that they, along with their co-conspirators, had procured a
significant quantity of narcotics from a person, namely, Nazir Bhai in
Pakistan; that the narcotics were then transported from Karnah to Srinagar
by Accused No. 01 with the assistance of other associates in a Scorpio
vehicle bearing registration number JK01Q-4141 concealed in a spare
wheel compartment (Stepney) and that it was further disclosed that Accused
No. 1 had already sold some portion of these narcotics in a Tata Taigo
vehicle with registration number JK09B-3619; that both vehicles were
found parked outside the compound of rented accommodation of Accused
No. 01 and, subsequently, on being searched, digital weighing machine and
Bail App No. 194/2025Page 6 of 11
open spare wheel were found in the vehicle, whereafter, all the recoveries
were seized in the instant case and seizure memos were prepared on spot,
site plan was drafted and the statements of witnesses were recorded; that
both the accused individuals, found involved in the commission of crime,
were arrested and an arrest memo was prepared on spot.
11. During the course of further investigation, the accused,
namely, Sajad Ah. Badhana (Accused No. 1) made a voluntary disclosure
before a Magistrate that he, in conspiracy with Zaheer Ahmad Tanch
(Accused No. 2), Bashir Ahmad Tanch (Accused No. 3), Ab. Rashid Kohli
(Accused No. 4)-Petitioner herein and Khayal Shafi Badhana (Accused
No.7), procured heroine from Nazir Ahmad S/O Siraj Deen R/O Amrohi
Karnah A/P Muzaffarabad POK (Accused No. 8) and transported it to
Srinagar from Karnah in Scorpio vehicle bearing No. JK01Q 4141, where
he sold this Heroine to Accused Nos.5 and 6 using vehicle Tata Tiago
bearing No JK09B 3619 against Cash of more than 08 lakhs INR, out of
which some amount was deposited by him in his bank account, moreover,
Gairat Ali Bajard (Accused No. 5) transferred Rs.15, 000/- in his bank
account using net banking; that the Accused No. 2 also made a voluntary
disclosure before the Magistrate that they, in conspiracy with Bashir Ahmad
Tanch (Accused No.3), Ab. Rashid Kohli (Accused No.4)-Petitioner
herein and Khayal Shafi Badhana (Accused No.7), procured heroine from
Nazir Ahmad S/O Siraj Deen R/O Amrohi, Karnah A/P Muzaffarabad POK
(Accused No. 08) and got it transported to Srinagar from Karnah in Scorpio
vehicle driven by (Accused No.1), where Accused No.1 sold some of this
Heroine to Accused Nos.05 and 06 against cash of more than Rs. 08 lakhs;
that, upon this discloser, Accused Nos. 03, 04 (Petitioner herein), 05, 06, 07
and 08 were found involved in the instant case, whereafter, they were
arrested, except Accused No. 7 who was at large. Upon conclusion of the
investigation, the charge sheet was laid before the Court of learned
Principal Sessions Judge, Srinagar on 9th of September, 2023 which is under
trial and many witnesses are yet to be examined.
Bail App No. 194/2025
Page 7 of 11
Proceedings before the Trial Court:
12. The Petitioner, as accused No.4, was charge-sheeted on 12th of
October, 2023 by the Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable
under Sections 8/21/29 NDPS Act, with the accusation that he abetted along
with other accused to procure contraband from one Nazir Bhat (absconding
accused) from POK under a criminal conspiracy and used to transport the
same from Karnah to Srinagar; that he used to share his location through
phone with accused Nos. 2 and 3 and on 6th of April, 202311 packets
weighing one Kg each of heroine were recovered from their rented house at
Kursoo, Rajbagh, besides an amount of Rs. 11,00,000/-, and that he was in
touch with co-accused through WhatsApp to discuss with regard to the
narcotics.
13. It appears that the Petitioner, along with other accused, before
approaching this Court, had earlier filed an application before the Trial
Court seeking grant of bail in his favour, however, the Trial Court did not
find favour with the plea so raised and rejected the application for bail vide
Order dated 5th of August, 2025, inter alia, on the ground that this was not a
simple drug case, but looks like cross-border smuggling which can even
touch on bigger problems like funding bad activities, besides, the rigors of
Section 37 of the NDPS Act have not been satisfied in the instant case. The
Trial Court also, while making reference to the law laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court relating to compliance of the mandate of Section
37 of the NDPS Act, held that where the offence is punishable with
minimum sentence of 10 years, the accused shall generally be not released
on bail and that, in this regard, ‘negation of bail is the rule and its grant is
an exception’.
Analysis:
14. On perusal of the record of the case received from the Trial
Court, it is apparent that commercial quantity of the contraband was not
recovered or seized from the Petitioner herein. The Petitioner essentially
Bail App No. 194/2025Page 8 of 11
has been charged of the offence punishable under Section 29 of the NDPS
Act, which provides as under:
“29. Punishment for abetment and criminal conspiracy:
(1) Whoever abets, or is a party to a criminal conspiracy to
commit, an offence punishable under this Chapter, shall, whether
such offence be or be not committed in consequence of such
abetment or in pursuance of such criminal conspiracy, and
notwithstanding anything contained in section 116 of the Indian
Penal Code (45 of 1860), be punishable with the punishment
provided for the offence.
(2) A person abets, or is a party to a criminal conspiracy to
commit, an offence, within the meaning of this section, who, in
India, abets or is a party to the criminal conspiracy to the
commission of any act in a place without and beyond India which–
(a) would constitute an offence if committed
within India; or
(b) under the laws of such place, is an offence
relating to narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances
having all the legal conditions required to constitute it
such an offence the same as or analogous to the legal
conditions required to constitute it an offence
punishable under this Chapter, if committed within
India.”
15. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
Petitioner that the accused was not charged of the commission of offence
punishable under Section 120-B IPC, i.e., criminal conspiracy, being
misconceived, is not tenable in view of the fact that Section 29 of the NDPS
Act is almost pari materia in its spirit to Section 120-B IPC.
16. The Petitioner has been charged for the commission of the
offences on the basis of the disclosure statements made by accused No. 1
and 2, from whom the contraband was recovered and seized, with the
accusation that he had entered into a conspiracy with them for procurement
of the seized contraband from POK from the absconding accused-Nazir
Bhai and that he had made calls from his Mobile Phone to the accused No.
1 and 2 and shared his location to them around the time of seizure and
recovery. Therefore, the only evidence against the Petitioner is the
statements made in their disclosures by the co-accused No. 1 and 2 and the
Bail App No. 194/2025
Page 9 of 11
calls made by him to them. Without any other evidence from CDRs
showing contact between an accused and a co-accused are not sufficient to
establish a nexus with drug trafficking, especially without voice recording
or transcripts of the conversation. As per the Prosecution Story, there is
neither any recording nor any transcript of the conversation on the file, as
such, call logs alone cannot prove a criminal conspiracy of sale or
transportation of drugs.
17. Having regard to the commercial quantity of seized contraband
in the instant case but not from the Petitioner, who had been charged to
have abetted the main accused under a conspiracy, applicability of rigor of
bail has to be examined. In this regard, Section 37 of the NDPS Act, being
relevant, is reproduced hereunder:
“37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) —
(a) every offence punishable under this Act
shall be cognizable;
(b) no person accused of an offence punishable
for 3 [offences under section 19 or section 24 or section
27A and also for offences involving commercial
quantity] shall be released on bail or on his own bond
unless–
(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given
an opportunity to oppose the application for
such release, and
(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes
the application, the court is satisfied that there
are reasonable grounds for believing that he is
not guilty of such offence and that he is not
likely to commit any offence while on bail.
(2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause
(b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law
for the time being in force on granting of bail.].”
18. Keeping in view the mandate of Section 37 of the NDPS Act,
it shall be fruitful to ascertain the legal position on the subject. In this
Bail App No. 194/2025
Page 10 of 11
behalf, reference can be made to a Judgment of the Apex Court passed in
case titled ‘Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu‘, reported as ‘AIR 2020
Supreme Court 5592’, wherein it was held that the statements of co-
accused recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are inadmissible, if the
phone records are the only link and that they fail to meet the reasonable
ground test under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Likewise, the High Cout of
Delhi in a case titled ‘Vinay Dua v. State Government of NCT of Delhi‘,
passed in BAIL APPLN No. 900/2025 decided on 11th of June, 2025, has
also held that mere WhatsApp chats and phone calls with co-accused are
not enough to deny bail under the NDPS Act.
Conclusions:
19. Since, in the present case, the Petitioner as an accused was not
found in possession of any contraband material and the only evidence
against him are the disclosure statements made by other co-accused, backed
by phone logs, therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the
accused-Petitioner is entitled to be granted bail, in that, the test of
reasonable grounds to deny bail as per the rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS
Act is not applicable to the case of the Petitioner herein.
20. For the foregoing reasons, the instant Bail Application is
allowed and the Petitioner is admitted to be released on bail, subject to the
following conditions:
i. The Petitioner shall furnish bail bonds to the tune of Rs.
50,000/-, along with surety in the like amount, to the
satisfaction of the Trial Court;
ii. The Petitioner shall not leave the country and, if the
Petitioner already has a passport, he shall surrender the
same to the Trial Court forthwith;
iii. The Petitioner shall furnish to the SHO concerned his
Cell Phone number on which he may be contacted at
Bail App No. 194/2025
Page 11 of 11
any time and shall also ensure that the said number is
kept active and switched on at all times;
iv. The Petitioner shall drop a google pin location from his
Mobile Phone to the SHO concerned, so as to show his
whereabouts, every day;
v. The Petitioner shall not indulge in any act or omission
that is unlawful, illegal or that would prejudice the
proceedings in pending cases, if any; and
vi. The Petitioner or his family members/ relatives/ friends
will not contact or try to influence/ intimidate any of
the Prosecution witnesses or tamper with the
Prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever;
21. It is made clear that nothing stated hereinabove shall
tantamount to an expression of opinion with regard to the merits of the case
and that all the observations made or findings recorded hereinabove shall be
restricted to the disposal of the present Bail Application only.
22. Bail Application is, thus, disposed of, along with pending
application(s), if any.
23. Registry to send a copy of this Judgment to the Trial Court for
information and compliance.
(M. A. CHOWDHARY)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR
April 29th, 2026
“TAHIR”
i. Whether the Judgment is approved for reporting? Yes.
Tahir Manzoor Bhat
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document
