Srinagar: Observing that prolonged custody by itself does not justify grant of bail, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has ruled that “mere fact that the appellant has been in custody for more than four years would not entitle him to grant of bail unless it is shown that there is no likelihood of his appeal being taken up for hearing in near future.”
The observation came from Justice Sanjay Dhar while dismissing a plea for suspension of sentence filed by Bashir Ahmad Bhat in a narcotics case.
The application stemmed from FIR No. 230/2021 registered under provisions of the NDPS Act. The appellant Bhat was convicted under Section 8/15(c) of the Act by the Special Judge (NDPS), Anantnag, in October 2025.
He was sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs one lakh, with an additional one-year imprisonment in case of default in payment of fine.
As per the prosecution case, on August 19, 2021, a police party on routine patrol intercepted an Alto vehicle near Dhonipora along the National Highway in Anantnag. Upon search, five nylon bags containing about 70 kilograms of poppy straw were recovered from the vehicle. The appellant was found in control of the vehicle at the time.
Following a full-fledged trial, the court held the charges to be proven and convicted him accordingly.
Seeking suspension of sentence and bail pending appeal, the appellant Bhat argued that he was innocent and that the conviction was unsustainable in law. He contended that there were inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence and that mandatory provisions of law had not been properly followed. He also stressed that he had already undergone more than four years of incarceration and that the appeal would take time to be decided.
The Union Territory, however, opposed the plea, arguing that the case involved recovery of a commercial quantity of contraband, thereby attracting the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. It submitted that bail in such cases can only be granted if the court is satisfied that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail.
After examining the record and hearing both sides, Justice Dhar noted that the legal position regarding grant of bail in NDPS cases involving commercial quantities is well settled by the Supreme Court. The court emphasized that the stringent twin conditions under Section 37 must be satisfied before granting bail, even at the post-conviction stage.
It further observed that a prima facie reading of the trial court record did not reveal any material contradictions in the prosecution evidence. It also held that the recovery in the case was a “chance recovery” from the vehicle and not based on prior information, thereby ruling out the applicability of certain procedural safeguards relating to personal search.
On the issue of delay, the court pointed out that the appeal had been filed recently and was capable of being heard. It noted that the appellant’s counsel had been offered an opportunity to argue the appeal but had sought time, indicating that the delay could not be attributed to the court.
Holding that the statutory conditions for grant of bail were not satisfied, the court dismissed the application. However, it granted liberty to the appellant to renew his plea if the appeal is not heard within six months for reasons beyond his control.
The judgment reflects the strict approach adopted by courts in narcotics cases, particularly those involving commercial quantities, underscoring that individual liberty claims must be balanced against the legislative intent to curb drug trafficking.
