Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Apr 11: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has rejected the bail plea of an NDPS accused in a commercial quantity charas case, while at the same time sharply criticizing the trial court for mechanically deferring proceedings after the case had already reached the stage of final arguments.
Justice Rajnesh Oswal passed the order in bail application filed by Afroz Ahmed Sheikh, a resident of village Wikibalan, Shangas, district Anantnag, presently lodged in District Jail Amphalla, Jammu. The case arises out of a complaint titled Union of India Versus Afroz Ahmad Sheikh pending before the Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Jammu.
According to the prosecution case, NCB Jammu intercepted the accused at Parmandal Morh on September 28, 2020, after receiving specific information that he was travelling from Anantnag to Surat carrying narcotics in a black shoulder bag. During the search, officials allegedly recovered 5.400 kilograms of charas from his possession, bringing the case within the category of commercial quantity under the NDPS Act.
The petitioner sought bail mainly on the ground of prolonged incarceration, arguing that he had remained in custody for nearly five years and that prosecution evidence had already concluded. His statement under Section 313/342 CrPC had also been recorded, but final arguments were stalled because of a supplementary complaint against co-accused Ghulam Mohiuddin Shah, leading to indefinite delay in conclusion of the trial.
The High Court noted that although the bar contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act applied because the recovered contraband was of commercial quantity, the trial court had deferred proceedings in a mechanical manner without formally deciding whether such deferment was legally justified. The Court also recorded surprise that despite the supplementary complaint having been filed on March 11, 2025, arguments on charge or discharge had still not been heard.
Observing that NDPS trials must be conducted with utmost expedition because of the stringent punishment provisions and restrictions on bail, the High Court held that the manner in which the case had been put on hold could not be appreciated. However, instead of granting bail, the Court directed the trial court to re-examine within 15 days the issue of deferring proceedings against the petitioner and then proceed in accordance with law. It also directed the trial court to conclude arguments on charge/discharge in the supplementary complaint within 30 days.
The Court made it clear that if the trial court again decides to defer proceedings in the complaint against the petitioner, he will be at liberty to file a fresh bail application.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
