HC refuses bail in 208-Kg NDPS case, says Section 37 Embargo overrides delay plea

16/12/2025

JAMMU, Dec 15: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has declined to grant bail to Mushtaq Ahmed Rather of Anantnag, accused in a major narcotics case involving recovery of over 208 kilograms of poppy straw, holding that the stringent conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act prevail over pleas of prolonged incarceration and alleged delay in trial.
Justice Shahzad Azeem, while dismissing Bail Application No. 223/2025, observed that at the stage of bail the Court is required to undertake only a prima facie assessment of the material on record and cannot conduct a mini trial or delve into the probative value of evidence. The Court underscored that in offences involving commercial quantity, "negation of bail is the rule and its grant an exception," in line with settled Supreme Court jurisprudence.
According to the prosecution, an information was received by Police Station ANTF, Jammu, on September 24, 2021, that the accused had concealed a huge quantity of poppy straw beneath apple boxes in a truck bearing registration JK02AG-8035, allegedly being driven from the Kashmir Valley towards Punjab. Acting on the tip-off, a naka was laid at Purmandal Morh, where the truck was intercepted.
A search conducted in the presence of an Executive Magistrate, and with assistance from other departments, led to the recovery of 13 plastic bags of poppy straw weighing 208 kg and 200 grams. Following codal formalities, FIR No. 12/2021 was registered under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act, and the challan was presented before the Special Judge (NDPS cases), Jammu.
The petitioner, represented by Mr. Arshad Hussain, Advocate, argued that despite examination of several prosecution witnesses, there were material contradictions in testimonies and that some witnesses had not fully supported the prosecution case. It was also contended that continued incarceration violated the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution, given the alleged delay in conclusion of trial.
The Union Territory opposed the bail plea, asserting that the rigour of Section 37 NDPS Act squarely applied, as the recovery involved commercial quantity and the material on record disclosed a prima facie case against the accused.
The High Court noted that till August 2025, the prosecution had examined multiple witnesses, including the Executive Magistrate (PW-13), who supported the search and recovery. Justice Azeem observed that none of the grounds urged by the petitioner demonstrated reasonable grounds to believe that he was not guilty, a mandatory requirement under Section 37 for grant of bail.
Relying on recent Supreme Court rulings, including Narcotics Control Bureau vs Kashif and Union of India vs Vigin K. Varghese, the Court held that prolonged incarceration or likely delay cannot, by itself, dilute the statutory embargo imposed by Section 37 in NDPS cases involving commercial quantity.
Concluding that the statutory conditions were not satisfied, the High Court dismissed the bail application, while clarifying that the observations made are confined to the bail stage and shall not prejudice the merits of the case during trial.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty