Srinagar: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has cancelled the bail granted to a “drug trafficker” in a case involving recovery of 57.20 kilograms of marijuana, holding that the trial court failed to comply with the mandatory conditions prescribed under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.
Justice Sanjay Parihar, in an order, allowed a petition filed by the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir seeking cancellation of the bail granted to the accused Naseer Ahmad Mir by the trial court on November 1, 2025.
The case arises from FIR No. 74 of 2024, registered under Sections 8/20 of the NDPS Act.
The alleged quantity of ‘ganja’ (marijuana) falls within the category of commercial quantity.
According to the prosecution, the incident occurred on October 16, 2024, when a police party reached near the Ayushman Health Centre at Village Chakoora. Mir was allegedly found sitting on bags containing a substance resembling ganja.
The prosecution claimed that he attempted to flee after noticing the police party but was apprehended. Three bags were allegedly recovered, with the substance subsequently weighing 57.20 kilograms.
The High Court observed that cases involving commercial quantities attract the stringent bail conditions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Where the prosecution opposes bail, the court must record its satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
The trial court had granted bail after taking note of alleged contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses relating to the recovery and seizure of the contraband and the procedure followed thereafter.
It had also relied upon the testimony of a prosecution witness who stated that Mir was initially apprehended on suspicion.
The High Court, however, found that the trial court had not adequately identified or analysed the contradictions to demonstrate that they were sufficient to meet the stringent threshold under Section 37.
It further noted that seven of the 11 prosecution witnesses had already been examined when bail was granted and that the trial was progressing without any unexplained or excessive delay.
The court also considered the defence argument that Mir had not misused the liberty granted to him and that no allegation had been made of influencing witnesses, tampering with evidence or evading the process of law. However, it held that the absence of subsequent misuse of bail could not cure a foundational illegality in the original bail order.
Setting aside the trial court’s November 1, 2025 order, the High Court withdrew the bail granted to Mir and directed him to surrender before the trial court forthwith and be taken into custody.
The trial court was directed to make every endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously.
The High Court made it clear that its observations were confined to the legality of the bail order and would not amount to a finding on the merits of the prosecution case.
The trial court has been directed to decide the case independently on the basis of evidence presented during the trial.
