J&K HC Stresses 'Utmost Expedition' In NDPS Trials

(MENAFN- Kashmir Observer) Jammu- The High Court of J&K and Ladakh has underscored that trials under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act must be conducted with“utmost expedition,” given the stringent bail provisions and severe punishments under the law.

“In cases under the NDPS Act, it is incumbent upon both the prosecution and the trial court to ensure that proceedings are concluded with the utmost expedition,” said a Bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal, adding,“This mandate is particularly critical given the stringent punishments prescribed under the Act and the statutory embargo on bail for offences involving a commercial quantity.”

ADVERTISEMENT

The court made the observation while dismissing a bail application filed by one Afroz Ahmed Sheikh, a 60-year-old resident of Anantnag, who has been in custody for nearly five years in an NDPS case.

Sheikh had sought bail on the ground of prolonged incarceration, arguing that the delay in trial amounted to pre-trial punishment and violated his right to a speedy trial. It was submitted that only six prosecution witnesses were examined over five years and that the trial had reached the stage of final arguments before being indefinitely deferred due to a supplementary complaint against a co-accused.

Opposing the plea, the Narcotics Control Bureau argued that the Sheikh was found in possession of a commercial quantity of contraband-over 5 kg of charas-and therefore the stringent conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act barred the grant of bail.

After examining the record, the court found that while the trial had substantially progressed and prosecution evidence stood concluded, the trial court had“mechanically” deferred proceedings in the main case solely due to the supplementary complaint against a co-accused.

Read Also J&K HC Seeks Haemophilia Drug Supply Details From JKMSCL J&K HC Upholds 'Waqf By User', Declares Kishtwar Shrines Waqf Properties

The High Court observed that even in such situations, trial courts must apply their mind and decide whether cases should proceed jointly or separately, rather than halting proceedings altogether. It emphasized that unnecessary delays defeat the mandate of speedy justice, especially in NDPS cases.

The court however declined to grant bail at this stage. Instead, it directed the trial court to re-examine within 15 days whether deferring the proceedings was legally justified and to proceed accordingly.

The court further instructed the trial court to decide the issue of charge in the supplementary complaint against the co-accused within 30 days.

While dismissing the bail plea, the court granted liberty to Sheikh to file a fresh application depending on the outcome of the trial court's reconsideration.

ADVERTISEMENT

MENAFN11042026000215011059ID1110970763