news details |
|
|
| Long jail stay no passport to bail in commercial drug trafficking case: HC | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, June 1: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has refused bail to Mohd. Ashraf Dar in an NCB case involving the alleged trafficking of a huge quantity of codeine-based cough syrup and Spasmo Proxyvon Plus capsules containing Tramadol, holding that prolonged incarceration by itself cannot override the stringent bail conditions under the NDPS Act.
Justice Shahzad Azeem dismissed the bail application filed by the 37-year-old Budgam resident in connection with Crime No. 23/2022 of NCB Jammu, registered under Sections 8/22/27-A/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
The prosecution case stems from a secret information received by NCB Jammu on December 9, 2022, regarding a narcotic consignment allegedly dispatched for delivery to Srinagar through a truck. The vehicle was intercepted near Chichi Mata Mandir, leading to the recovery of four cartons of Spasmo Proxyvon Plus capsules and four cartons of codeine-based cough syrup.
According to the investigation, Dar and co-accused Riyaz Ahmed Dar allegedly arrived at Jupiter Road Lines Transport on December 10, 2022, to receive the seized consignment comprising 750 bottles of codeine-based cough syrup and 45,936 capsules of Spasmo Proxyvon Plus containing Tramadol.
During arguments, Advocate Deepika Pushkar Nath appeared for the petitioner and contended that, except for statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, there was no material connecting him with the alleged offences. She also cited his custody since December 11, 2022, seeking bail on the ground of prolonged incarceration.
Opposing the plea, DSGI Vishal Sharma, assisted by CGSC Karan Sharma, submitted that the petitioner was part of a conspiracy and that the investigating officer had collected material beyond the alleged statements, including call detail records and financial transactions linking him with the co-accused.
The High Court noted that the investigation had relied upon call details of a mobile number issued in the name of the petitioner's wife but allegedly used by him, besides money transactions purportedly linked to procurement of the narcotic substances. It also observed that two prosecution witnesses examined so far had prima facie supported the prosecution case.
The Court held that the petitioner had failed to point out any circumstance sufficient to record a finding that he was not guilty of the offences charged, a mandatory requirement for grant of bail in cases involving commercial quantity under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Observing that persons facing charges punishable with a minimum sentence of 10 years cannot seek bail as a matter of right merely on the basis of length of custody, the High Court dismissed the application.
However, taking note of the period already spent by the petitioner in custody, the Court directed the trial court to endeavour to conclude the trial with utmost promptitude.
(JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
