Rejects bail application in ‘narcotic financial linkage case’
Srinagar: Holding that the absence of recovery of narcotic substances from an accused cannot, by itself, entitle him to bail when the prosecution alleges his involvement in financing drug trafficking, the High Court of J&K and Ladakh has rejected a bail plea in a case involving an alleged organised heroin trafficking network.
Justice M.A. Chowdhary, while emphasising the stringent statutory restrictions under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, observed that where a commercial quantity of narcotics is involved, an accused must satisfy the twin conditions prescribed under the provision before being granted bail.
“The absence of recovery from the petitioner, therefore, is a circumstance which may be examined during trial but does not, at this stage, conclusively displace the allegations founded upon the other material collected by the investigating agency,” the court observed.
The court dismissed a bail application filed by an accused Shabir Ahmed Wani, who had sought bail in connection with FIR No. 17/2023 registered at Police Station Rajbagh, Srinagar, under Sections 8, 21, 27 and 29 of the NDPS Act read with Section 201 IPC.
The case arose from allegations of an organised narcotics trafficking operation involving a substantial consignment of heroin.
The prosecution alleged that the accused persons were involved in smuggling, possessing, selling, purchasing, transporting and financing commercial quantities of the contraband.
The petitioner approached the High Court after his bail application was rejected by the Special Court (NDPS Cases), Srinagar, on August 5, 2025.
Seeking bail, the petitioner argued that no narcotic substance had been recovered from his possession and that his implication in the case was primarily based on disclosure statements made by co-accused persons, which, according to him, were inadmissible in evidence.
He further maintained that the financial transactions relied upon by the prosecution had been sufficiently explained.
According to his submission, an amount of Rs 1.50 lakh transferred to his bank account was connected with a proposed vehicle sale, which did not materialise, following which Rs 1.48 lakh was returned to the sender on the same day.
The petitioner also contended that only Rs 5,000 had been transferred from his account to the account of a co-accused and that the witnesses examined during the trial had not implicated him in the alleged offences.
He argued that Section 37 of the NDPS Act was not attracted in his case, besides pointing out that he had already undergone approximately two years and five months of incarceration.
Opposing the plea, the prosecution submitted that the petitioner was allegedly associated with the co-accused in financing the narcotics trade and that the case involved trafficking of commercial quantities of heroin.
Prosecution also argued that his release could facilitate his involvement in similar activities.
Examining the material on record, the High Court noted that the chargesheet disclosed a financial transaction of Rs 5,000 from the petitioner’s bank account to the account of co-accused Gairat Ali, which was subsequently transferred to the principal accused, Sajad Ahmad Badana.
The court observed that the prosecution sought to rely upon this transaction as a circumstance connecting the petitioner with the alleged narcotics trafficking network.
“The prosecution seeks to rely upon the aforesaid financial transaction as one of the circumstances connecting the petitioner with the alleged narcotics trafficking network,” the judgment recorded.
The court further clarified that at the stage of considering bail, it was not required to conduct a detailed examination of the evidence or return a finding on the guilt or innocence of the accused.
“The exercise is essentially confined to a ‘prima facie’ assessment of the material available on record, the nature and gravity of the accusations, the circumstances in which the offence is alleged to have been committed, and the statutory limitations governing the grant of bail,” Justice Chowdhary observed.
Addressing the petitioner’s explanation regarding the Rs 1.50 lakh transaction and the subsequent return of Rs 1.48 lakh, the court held that these financial transactions required appreciation in the light of evidence to be produced during trial.
It observed that the court could not undertake a detailed scrutiny of such transactions at the bail stage to conclusively accept the petitioner’s explanation or discard the prosecution case.
On the applicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the High Court reiterated that the two statutory conditions are cumulative in nature. The court must have reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence and must also be satisfied that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
“These conditions are cumulative in nature and constitute substantive limitations upon the exercise of jurisdiction to grant bail,” the court observed.
Applying the statutory restrictions to the facts of the case, the court held that the alleged financial linkage between the petitioner and the co-accused, the nature of the accusations concerning financing of narcotics trafficking and the material collected during investigation did not enable it to record the requisite satisfaction for granting bail.
“The material presently available does not enable the court to arrive at the requisite satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the offences alleged against him,” the judgment stated.
The court also considered the argument relating to prolonged incarceration and the progress of the trial. It was informed that 18 out of the total 33 prosecution witnesses had already been examined.
However, the court held that the period of custody and the number of witnesses examined could not, in the circumstances of the case, override the statutory restrictions governing bail in offences involving commercial quantities of narcotic substances.
“The question of prolonged incarceration and delay in conclusion of trial may, in an appropriate case, furnish an independent ground for consideration of bail,” the court observed, while adding that the circumstances of the present case did not warrant release of the petitioner at this stage.
