Srinagar: Holding that a “drug trafficker” cannot be admitted to bail merely on the ground that he has been in long incarceration, the Court of Special Judge, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS cases), here said while rejecting the bail of a man accused of trading drugs.
The Court of Special Judge NDPS Cases, Srinagar presided over by Vinod Kumar while rejecting the bail application of the accused Ghulam Nabi Dar, son of Mohammad Shafi Dar of Paliharan Sheeri Baramulla, held “the applicant cannot be admitted to bail in this heinous and anti-social crime merely on the ground of long incarceration in jail.”
According to the prosecution, on February 24, 2024, during naka checking at Sozeith by Police Station Shaltang, a vehicle (CH01AM-9496) was intercepted following which the driver attempted to flee. A polythene bag containing 910 grams of heroin-like substance was recovered from under the driver’s seat.
The driver (co-accused) identified as Ishtiyaq Ahmad Khawaja, son of Abdul Hamid Khawaja, resident of Dildar Karnah Kupwara was subsequently arrested and a case under section 8/21 NDPS Act was registered and investigation started.
Based on mobile data, the applicant (Ghulam Nabi Dar) was implicated and arrested. Driver Ishtiyaq confessed that both the accused had met in Central Jail Srinagar and agreed to engage in illegal narcotics trade post-release.
The police said, “on the day of the incident, the duo received a call from across the border (Pakistan) to collect drugs from Qaimoh Anantnag”, but were subsequently “redirected to JVC Bemina where they received the parcel from an unknown person for delivery at Narbal”.
“The applicant disclosed receiving the parcel at Bemina. … after learning of Ishtiyaq’s arrest, he sent Rs 20,000 to Ishtiyaq’s brother so as to prevent him from disclosing his name. The mobile phone used for the transaction was recovered from the applicant’s home, leading to invocation of Section 29 NDPS Act,” says the police.
After hearing the counsel for the accused and the public prosecutor, judge Vinod Kumar said “if the accused has committed an offence, he has to remain behind bars. Such detention in jail even as an under-trial prisoner would not be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.”
He said that it is true that grant of bail is a matter of judicial discretion, however, the discretion cannot be exercised too loosely, particularly in heinous offences of serious nature/matters of grave concern, where trial deserves to be concluded expeditiously.
“Keeping into consideration the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and the accusations levelled against the petitioner herein, the bail application filed by the petitioner cannot be allowed at this stage as the petitioner is involved in very serious offences which are non-bailable,” he said.
This court, the judge said “has meticulously applied the twin conditions stipulated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which impose a stringent embargo on the grant of bail in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotic drugs.”
The court held “the recovery of 910 grams of heroin-like substance—far exceeding the commercial quantity threshold of 250 grams for heroin under the NDPS Act—coupled with the applicant’s prima facie involvement through vehicle ownership, financial transactions, and corroborative disclosures, precludes any such satisfaction.”
It noted that the material on record establishes a strong prima facie case, and there is a tangible risk of the applicant re-engaging in similar activities, given his disclosed prior association with narcotics trade.
“The involvement of cross-border elements, as revealed in the confessional statements indicating calls from Pakistan for drug collection, elevates the gravity of the offence, aligning it with threats to national security,” the court added.
It said that the enactment of the NDPS Act is to curb the ever-increasing menace of drug peddling and illegal possession and sale, and its ramifications on the society, and the youth in particular.
Keeping in view the “nature and seriousness of accusation against the applicant, the character of evidence, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, the larger interest of the society and state, the court is of the view that no good ground is made out by the petitioner for enlarging him on bail.”
