Charge order must reflect application of mind: HC

21/07/2026

JAMMU, Jul 20: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed an order framing charges against a Kathua resident in an alleged heroin trafficking case, holding that the trial court had passed the order in a "cryptic manner" without assigning reasons and that the charges appeared to have been framed mechanically without application of mind.
Justice M.A. Chowdhary set aside the November 24, 2025 order passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Samba, to the extent it related to accused Mohd Aslam alias Royal and remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh consideration on the question of charge. The accused is facing trial in a case titled NCB versus Sukhjinder Singh and others, arising out of NCR Crime No. 4 of 2023 registered under Sections 8, 21, 29 and 60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.
According to the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), information was received that three persons would transport a commercial quantity of heroin from Amritsar to Samba for its alleged delivery to Aslam near NH-44 in the Ghagwal area.
The NCB alleged that its team intercepted a vehicle during the intervening night of June 12 and 13, 2023, and found three persons inside.
A motorcycle rider approaching the spot allegedly fled after noticing NCB personnel and abandoned the motorcycle.
The agency further alleged that Aadhaar and PAN cards belonging to Aslam were recovered from the motorcycle and call-detail records indicated several calls between him and an alleged supplier before the seizure. Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Amjed Khan argued that no contraband was recovered from Aslam and there was no independent or corroborative material connecting him with the alleged conspiracy.
He submitted that the case against the petitioner was primarily based on statements of the co-accused recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, which, he contended, were inadmissible in view of the Supreme Court's ruling in Toofan Singh. Central Government Standing Counsel Eishaan Dadhichi, appearing vice Deputy Solicitor General of India Vishal Sharma, opposed the petition and submitted that the accused's alleged presence at the spot, his flight and recovery of identity documents from the motorcycle constituted sufficient material for framing charges.
After examining the record, Justice Chowdhary observed that the trial court had neither discussed the prosecution material nor considered the objections raised by the accused.
"The impugned order was passed in a cryptic manner without assigning reasons," the High Court observed, adding that the charges appeared to have been framed mechanically and without application of mind. The court observed that the stage of framing charges was a crucial stage of a criminal trial and, particularly in a contested matter, the pleas raised by an accused were required to be considered before arriving at a prima facie conclusion.
Holding the trial court's order unsustainable, the High Court quashed it only to the extent of MohdAslam and directed the Sessions Court to reconsider the question of framing charges afresh. The High Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations. The connected bail application was also disposed of, granting liberty to the accused to approach the trial court afresh for bail after reconsideration of the charges.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty