NDPS Case: J & K HC Rejects Convict's Bail Plea
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar dismissed the application filed by Bashir Ahmad Bhat, who was sentenced to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and fined Rs 1 lakh under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
ADVERTISEMENT
The case arises from an FIR registered in 2021, in which police recovered 70 kilograms of poppy straw from a vehicle at Dhonipora along the Anantnag-Sangam highway. The trial court had convicted Bhat in October last year.
While seeking bail, Bhat argued that he had already spent over four years in custody and that there were inconsistencies in the prosecution's case. However, the court held that in offences involving commercial quantities under the NDPS Act, stringent conditions for bail apply.
“...while long incarceration of a convict may be a factor for considering the issue as to whether constitutional right guaranteed under Article 21 of the convict stands violated but in a case where the accused has been convicted of an offence under NDPS Act which attracts stringent conditions laid down in Section 37 of the said Act, the Court has to be satisfied that such conditions are fulfilled before enlarging the convict on bail”.
Citing multiple Supreme Court rulings, the High Court observed that bail in such cases can only be granted if the court is satisfied that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail, the conditions that were not met in the present case.
The court also rejected arguments regarding procedural lapses, noting prima facie that the recovery was a“chance recovery” from a vehicle, making provisions related to prior information and personal search inapplicable.
Read Also Police Attaches Property Worth Rs 2.25 Crore in NDPS Case in Anantnag J&K Police Dismiss Woman Employee In NDPS CaseAccordingly, the bail application was dismissed. However, the court granted liberty to the appellant to renew his plea if the appeal is not heard within six months for reasons not attributable to him.
The court clarified that its observations would not affect the final adjudication of the pending appeal.
ADVERTISEMENT
Legal Disclaimer:
MENAFN provides the
information “as is” without warranty of any kind. We do not accept
any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images,
videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information
contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright
issues related to this article, kindly contact the provider above.

Comments
No comment