Srinagar- The High Court of J&K and Ladakh on Friday dismissed bail plea of a drug trafficker, observing that such offenders deal a“deadly blow” to the youth and pose a grave threat to society.
Dismissing a plea by 27-year-old Shahnawaz Ahmad Dar, a bench of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal noted that drug trafficking not only devastates individual lives but also undermines public health, weakens family structures, fuels secondary crimes, and endangers entire communities.
“Drug traffickers inflict a deadly blow on the youth and are a hazard to society. Their activities not only destroy individual lives but also undermine public health, erode family structures, fuel secondary crimes, and threaten communities,” the court said, underling that granting bail in such cases without strict compliance with the statutory conditions creates a real and tangible risk of the accused returning to the same network and re-offending.
“The social cost of permitting such offenders to re-enter the community, even temporarily, is immeasurable,” the court said, underlining that the legislative intent behind the NDPS Act is precisely to shield the public from the grave dangers posed by drug traffickers and to prevent the recurrence of offences that carry devastating consequences for present and future generations.
The court further observed that while the factor of prolonged incarceration is undoubtedly a relevant consideration in the adjudication of a bail application, such consideration cannot, in itself, furnish an adequate or independent ground for the grant of bail in cases governed by the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
“The statutory restrictions imposed under Section 37 are mandatory in nature, and the Court is bound to record its satisfaction regarding the twin requirements-first, that there exist reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence, and second, that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail,” the court said while rejecting Dar's contention that he has been in custody since 2021.
“This Court is equally mindful of the petitioner's plea that petitioner has been in custody for more than four years, having already undergone more than one-third of the minimum sentence prescribed, therefore, in light of such prolonged incarceration the continuance of the detention of accused would impinge Article 21,” the court said, adding,“However, the record reveals that as many as ten prosecution witnesses out of thirteen have already been examined, and the trial is now at an advanced stage. The right under Article 21 operates subject to the 'procedure established by law', and Section 37 of the NDPS Act constitutes such valid and stringent statutory procedure.”
Where the Legislature, in its wisdom, has mandated the recording of specific satisfaction before granting bail in cases involving commercial quantity, the Court cannot dilute or bypass these conditions on general notions of delay or liberty, the Bench said.
“Consequently, the continued custody of the petitioner (Dar), in the absence of satisfaction of the twin conditions, cannot be characterized violative of Article 21 of Constitution of India,” the court said and rejected Dar's plea for grant of bail.

MENAFN21112025000215011059ID1110380699