HC sets aside 10-year jail terms of two in 807-gram heroin case

10/10/2026

JAMMU, Oct 9: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has set aside the conviction and 10-year rigorous imprisonment awarded to two persons in an alleged 807-gram heroin recovery case, extending them the benefit of doubt after finding material contradictions in the prosecution evidence.
Justice Sanjay Parihar allowed the criminal appeal filed by Mohammad Shafi Lone and Bilal Ahmad Dar, quashing the judgment of conviction dated May 24, 2023, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kupwara, in an FIR registered under Sections 8 and 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.
Both appellants had been sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and fined Rs. 1 lakh each, with an additional two-and-a-half years of imprisonment in default of payment.
According to the prosecution, the Anti-Narcotic Task Force (ANTF), Kashmir, intercepted a vehicle at Bramri Chowk, Drugmulla, in Kupwara district on December 10, 2020, following information about the transportation of narcotics. The prosecution alleged that 435 grams of heroin were recovered from Lone and 372 grams from Dar during personal searches conducted in the presence of an Executive Magistrate.
However, the High Court found significant inconsistencies regarding the place from which the contraband was recovered. The Executive Magistrate, who was associated with the search and seizure proceedings, testified that the two polythene bags containing the contraband had been recovered from the vehicle rather than from the personal possession of the accused.
The court observed that the contradiction went to the root of the prosecution case and could not be treated as a minor discrepancy.
The High Court also examined compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, which provides safeguards concerning personal searches. It noted that the consent forms relied upon by the prosecution neither bore the signatures of the accused nor had been duly proved and exhibited as substantive evidence during the trial.
The investigating officer admitted that the appellants' signatures had not been obtained on the consent memoranda. The court also noted conflicting testimony regarding whether the accused had been informed of their right to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer.
Justice Parihar observed that the mere presence of an Executive Magistrate during the search could not substitute proof that the accused had been properly informed of their statutory rights.
The court further held that the presumption under Section 54 of the NDPS Act could not be invoked unless the prosecution first established the foundational facts of possession and recovery through reliable and legally admissible evidence.
Although forensic examination confirmed the presence of diacetylmorphine, or heroin, in the samples, the court observed that the laboratory findings alone could not establish that the contraband had been recovered from the appellants in the manner alleged.
Referring to Supreme Court judgments in State of Rajasthan v. Parmanand and Arif Khan v. State of Uttarakhand, the High Court reiterated the importance of complying with statutory safeguards governing personal searches under the NDPS Act.
The court held that the material contradictions concerning the recovery, deficiencies in the consent documents and conflicting witness statements created reasonable doubt about the prosecution's case. It observed that the trial court had not properly appreciated these aspects while recording the conviction.
Allowing the appeal, the High Court set aside the conviction and sentences and acquitted both appellants by extending them the benefit of doubt.
The court directed that Dar, who was in custody, be released forthwith unless required in another case or under a lawful detention order. Lone, who was already on bail, was discharged from his bail bonds.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty