Srinagar: A Special court here on Tuesday rejected the bail application of an accused allegedly involved in a narcotics supply network, observing that release of the accused involved in commercial quantity trafficking of psychotropic substances would send a wrong signal to the drug peddlers.
The bail rejection order was passed by Special Judge, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS Cases) Vinod Kumar in the case titled UT vs. Muzaffar Ahmad Bhat, stemming from FIR No. 45/2023 registered at Police Station Chanapora under different Sections of the NDPS Act.
According to the prosecution, a police patrol party had on July 27, 2023 arrested one Asim Hassan, son of Ghulam Hassan Bhat of Gowsia Colony, Chanapora after recovering 90 bottles of Codeine Phosphate syrup, a banned narcotic substance, from his vehicle (DL12CB-4865) at Gowsia Colony, Lal Nagar, Methan Chanapora.
“The person had kept this illegal banned drug inside the vehicle with the intention to sell it amongst the youth to make them drug addicts,” said the prosecution.
A case was registered and during investigation three more accused persons were arrested.
During investigation, the police claimed to have unearthed a wider network of alleged drug suppliers.
The bail applicant, Muzaffar Ahmad Bhat of Hyderpora, was subsequently arrested in January 2024 following a supplementary charge-sheet.
Investigators allege that Bhat was involved in supplying Codeine bottles to the main accused for further distribution.
The prosecution relied, among other things, on a disclosure statement made by the co-accused before an Executive Magistrate, in which Bhat was named as a supplier. The statement also referred to specific transactions, including digital payments and cash dealings, suggesting a continuing pattern of alleged drug trade.
Opposing the bail plea, the Special Public Prosecutor argued that the recovered contraband falls within the category of “commercial quantity”, thereby invoking the bar on bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
The counsel for the accused contended that his client has been falsely implicated solely on the basis of a co-accused’s statement, which, he argued, is not legally admissible.
After hearing both sides and perusing the material on record, the court held that the case involves serious allegations relating to trafficking of narcotics in commercial quantity.
It observed that, at the stage of bail, a detailed evaluation of evidence is not required, but there must be reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty.
It said the disclosure statement, financial trail, and testimonies of prosecution witnesses collectively constitute sufficient material to establish a prima facie case.
It further held that the accused failed to satisfy the “twin conditions” mandated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, that he is not guilty of the offence and is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail.
The court also noted the growing drug menace in the Kashmir Valley and emphasized the need for a cautious approach in such matters.
The release of an accused involved in “commercial quantity trafficking” would send a wrong signal to the drug peddlers and would be antithetical to the legislative purpose behind the NDPS Act. Accordingly, the bail application was rejected.
