Abdul Rashid Kohli Released from Custody; Court Finds Insufficient Evidence for Continued Detention
In a significant ruling, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court at Srinagar has granted bail to Abdul Rashid Kohli, accused under various provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The judgment, delivered by Justice M.A. Chowdhary on April 29, 2026, comes as a relief to Kohli, who faced charges related to abetment and conspiracy in drug trafficking.
The bail application stemmed from Kohli's involvement in FIR No. 17/2023, registered at Police Station Rajbagh, Srinagar, alleging the smuggling and sale of narcotics including heroin. Kohli, along with other co-accused, was implicated based on disclosure statements by arrested individuals and phone logs.
During the proceedings, the court scrutinized the evidence presented, particularly the absence of direct recovery of contraband from Kohli. The judgment highlighted that the sole evidence against Kohli was the disclosure statements of co-accused and phone logs, which lacked voice recordings or transcripts. Justice Chowdhary noted that such evidence was insufficient to establish a criminal conspiracy or nexus with drug trafficking under the NDPS Act.
The court referenced landmark judgments, including the Supreme Court's decision in 'Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu' and the Delhi High Court's ruling in 'Vinay Dua v. State Government of NCT of Delhi'. These precedents emphasized that mere phone calls or WhatsApp chats do not meet the stringent requirements for denying bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which mandates reasonable grounds for believing the accused's innocence.
The ruling underscored the principle that prolonged incarceration cannot be the sole ground for bail. Instead, the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and will not commit offenses while on bail.
Kohli's bail is subject to specific conditions, including the furnishing of bail bonds, surrendering his passport, and maintaining contact with law enforcement to ensure compliance with legal proceedings.
This judgment highlights the court's balanced approach in safeguarding individual liberty while addressing serious offenses under the NDPS Act. It reinforces the necessity of robust evidence in drug-related cases to prevent unjust detention.
Bottom line:-
NDPS Act - Bail application under Section 37 - Petitioner not found in possession of contraband - Sole evidence against petitioner being disclosure statements of co-accused and phone logs - Mere phone calls or WhatsApp chats insufficient to establish criminal conspiracy under the NDPS Act - Reasonable grounds to deny bail under Section 37 not satisfied.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 8/21, 27-A, 29, 37, 52A, 50 of the NDPS Act; Section 201 of IPC; Section 120B of CrPC.
