Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Tehsil Hiranagar vs Jammu on 20 July, 2026
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2158
Serial No. 84
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Bail App No. 57/2026
Reserved on: 14.07.2026
Pronounced on: 20.07.2026
Uploaded on: 20.07.2026
Whether the operative part or Full
judgment is pronounced: Full
Mohd. Aslam, (26 years)
S/O Teg Ali
R/O Mathura Chak,
Tehsil Hiranagar, District Kathua .....Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Amjed Khan, Advocate.
Vs
1. Union of India through
Narcotics Control Bureau, Jammu
through its Intelligence Officer.
2. Superintendent, Central Jail,
Jammu
..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Eishaan Dadhichi, CGSC vice
Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI.
CRM(M) No. 315/2026
Mohd. Aslam, (26 years)
S/O Teg Ali .....Petitioner(s)
R/O Mathura Chak,
Tehsil Hiranagar, District Kathua
Through: Mr. Amjed Khan, Advocate.
Vs
1. Union of India through
Narcotics Control Bureau, Jammu
Through its Intelligence Officer.
2. Superintendent, Central Jail,
Jammu
..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Eishaan Dadhichi, CGSC vice
Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI.
Bail App No.57/2026 c/w CRM(M) No.315/2026 Page 1 of 6
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2158
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M A CHOWDHARY, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
CRM(M) No.315/2026
01. Petitioner, facing trial, as one of the accused, in a case titled ‘NCB V.
Sukhjinder Singh & Ors.’ before the Court of learned Principal
Sessions Judge, Samba, arising out of NCR Crime No.4/2023 dated
13.06.2023 under Sections 8/21/29/60 NDPS Act, 1985, has
challenged the order dated 24.11.2025 passed by the Trial Court,
whereby charges have been framed against him under Sections
02. The impugned order has been assailed on various grounds that no
contraband had been recovered from him and he was merely shown as
an intended receiver under a conspiracy, regarding which, no proof
was placed on record, as conspiracy and abetment require independent
corroboration; that the case had been based against the accused
squarely on the statements of co-accused recorded under Section 67 of
NDPS Act, which in view of Toofan Singh judgment of the Apex
court are inadmissible in evidence; that there was no independent and
corroborative evidence to link the petitioner to the commission of the
crime; that the CDR details placed on record were not of the details of
the petitioner’s mobile phone; and finally it was prayed to quash the
order impugned whereby the petitioner had been charge sheeted.
03. Pursuant to notice, the respondent-NCB filed objections asserting
therein that the NCB had received a secret and credible information on
12.06.2023 that three persons namely Sukhjinder Singh, Karan Singh
Bail App No.57/2026 c/w CRM(M) No.315/2026 Page 2 of 6
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2158
and Sandeep Singh would transport a commercial quantity of Heroin
in private vehicle No. PB09N-1830 (Maruti Alto) from Amritsar
(Punjab) to Samba (J&K) for delivery to one-Mohd. Aslam @ Royal
(petitioner herein), who was to receive the said consignment at NH-44
near VVM HSS Nonath, Gagwal Area, Samba; that the NCB team,
after completing procedural formalities, constituted a raiding team
from its Jammu Office, which reached the designated spot and at
about 0030 hours on 13.06.2023 maintained surveillance in
accordance with law; that they could not secure the presence of any
independent witnesses due to late night hours; that at about 3:30
hours, the suspected vehicle was intercepted and three persons were
found inside the said vehicle, who disclosed their identities as
Sukhjinder Singh, Karan Singh and Sandeep Singh; that at the same
time, a motorcycle rider approached the spot in a suspicious manner
but upon noticing the personnel of the NCB team, he fled away
abandoning his motorcycle No. JK08N-2189, thereby indicating his
involvement in the illicit activity.
04. It is further pleaded that subsequent investigation revealed on the basis
of the articles recovered from motorcycle that the same was
abandoned by petitioner Mohd. Aslam @ Royal; that besides the
incriminating voluntary statements of all the co-accused, it was
concluded in the investigation that the petitioner herein namely Mohd.
Aslam @ Royal was the intended receiver of the seized contraband
Heroin, as such, was also arrayed as an accused having entered into a
conspiracy in this illicit trafficking of the narcotics. It was finally
Bail App No.57/2026 c/w CRM(M) No.315/2026 Page 3 of 6
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2158
prayed that the petition be dismissed as the trial court has rightly
framed the charge against the petitioner as an accused to face the trial.
05. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, vehemently, argued that there
was no material, worth its name, on the trial court record, so as to
frame charge against petitioner for the commission of offences
punishable U/Ss 8/21/29 & 60 NDPS Act, as neither any contraband
had been recovered from his possession nor he was found to be
involved in any conspiracy or abetment; that the abandoned
motorcycle, which was claimed by the NCB to be that of the
petitioner, was not in his name and that, merely, the statement of the
co-accused made incriminating against him, being inadmissible in
view of Toofan Singh judgment passed by the Apex Court, the charge
could not have been framed against the petitioner. It was finally
argued that the petition be allowed and the order framing charge be set
aside.
06. Learned counsel for the respondent, ex adverso, argued that it was not
a case of only and merely, incriminating statement of the co-accused
against the petitioner herein but his presence at the place of occurrence
during the dead of the night on a motorcycle and his fleeing away on
seeing the NCB team leaving behind his Aadhar Card and Pan Card in
the Motor Cycle, were sufficient to hold that he was involved in a
conspiracy with the co-accused or had abetted the commission of
offence, in some manner. He further argued that there were call details
record (CDR) from the cell phone of supplier namely Sukhvir Kour @
Rajvir Kour of Amritsar, who had made scores of calls to the
Bail App No.57/2026 c/w CRM(M) No.315/2026 Page 4 of 6
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2158
petitioner herein before the seizure of the contraband, on the mobile
phone used by the petitioner herein.
07. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length, perused the impugned
order and considered.
08. On perusal of the impugned order, it is found that the learned trial
Court had framed charges against the accused for the commission of
offences punishable U/Ss 8/21/29/60 NDPS Act. The order impugned
has neither discussed the facts brought on record by the prosecution
nor the plea raised by the petitioner, and the impugned order was
passed in a cryptic manner without assigning reasons. Since the
impugned order is not with the reasons, it appears that the learned trial
Court has framed the charges in a mechanical manner, without
application of mind. The grounds raised in this petition were stated to
have been raised before the trial Court as well, which were not even
considered, let alone addressed.
09. In view of grounds raised in this petition and the fact that the same
were not taken into consideration by the Court below, so as to be
addressed before coming to the conclusion that the petitioner as an
accused was ‘prima facie’ found to have committed offences
punishable U/Ss 8/21/29 & 60 NDPS Act to frame charges against
him, the order impugned is not sustainable, particularly, when in a
contested matter, the plea raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner having not been considered before framing of charge, which
is a prime stage of the criminal trial. In the aforesaid view of the
Bail App No.57/2026 c/w CRM(M) No.315/2026 Page 5 of 6
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2158
matter, this court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order
is liable to be set aside.
10. Viewed thus, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated
24.11.2025 passed by the trial Court, whereby charges were framed
against the accused, is quashed to the extent of petitioner herein i.e.
accused Mohd. Aslam. The matter is ordered to be remanded back to
the trial Court for fresh consideration of the charge against the
petitioner herein as an accused.
11. The petition is accordingly disposed of along with connected
application(s).
Bail App No.57/2026
12. Since CRM(M) No.315/2026 clubbed with this bail application has been
allowed and the matter has been remanded back to the trial Court for
reconsideration of the charge, without commenting on its merits, the bail
application is also disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move bail
application afresh before the trial court after consideration of the charge.
13. Bail application is accordingly disposed of.
14. This order shall be placed across both the files, copy whereof shall be
forwarded to the trial court for information and compliance.
(M A CHOWDHARY)
JUDGE
JAMMU
20.07.2026
Raj Kumar
Whether the order is speaking?: Yes
Whether the order is reportable?: Yes
Bail App No.57/2026 c/w CRM(M) No.315/2026 Page 6 of 6
