Court Upholds Rigorous Standards of NDPS Act Amid Allegations Against Investigating Officer
In a significant ruling, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application of Mohammad Ashraf Dar, who is embroiled in a high-profile drug trafficking case involving the smuggling of 445 kilograms of Poppy Straw. The judgment, rendered by Justice Rajnesh Oswal, underscores the stringent criteria set forth under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, which precludes bail in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated.
The petitioner, Mohammad Ashraf Dar, had sought anticipatory bail following allegations of extortion by the investigating officer, Amandeep Singh, who was accused of demanding money from Dar in exchange for leniency. Despite these claims, the court found substantial evidence linking Dar to a drug syndicate, including a financial transaction of Rs. 1.00 lac from co-accused Nadeem Ahmad Sofi to Dar's account. Dar contended that the sum was related to a vehicle sale agreement; however, the court determined this defense to be a matter for trial rather than bail consideration.
Justice Oswal emphasized the rigorous application of Section 37 NDPS Act, noting that the contraband involved constituted a commercial quantity and the petitioner failed to demonstrate reasonable grounds suggesting his innocence. The judgment also highlighted that allegations against the investigating officer do not undermine the material evidence against Dar.
The prosecution presented a detailed account of the syndicate's operations, revealing connections between Dar and other co-accused, including the transaction trail and frequent communications linked to drug smuggling activities. Notices under Section 67 of the NDPS Act were issued to Dar, who allegedly evaded arrest, further complicating his legal standing.
In dismissing Dar's bail application, the court distinguished the present case from precedents cited by the petitioner, such as decisions in Rahish Nadiar Ali Shah v. Narcotics Control Bureau and Joy Mitra v. Narcotics Control Bureau, which were deemed inapplicable due to differences in facts and evidence.
The judgment serves as a reminder of the rigorous standards applied to drug-related offenses under the NDPS Act, reaffirming the judiciary's commitment to tackling narcotics trafficking with stringent legal measures.
Bottom Line:
Anticipatory bail cannot be granted under Section 37 of the NDPS Act in cases involving the smuggling of commercial quantities of narcotics, even if allegations are raised against the investigating officer.
Statutory provision(s): Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985 Sections 8, 15, 25, 29, 37; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 438; Indian Penal Code Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B; Motor Vehicles Act Sections 52, 182A(4)
Mohammad Ashraf Dar v. U. T. of J&K, (Jammu And Kashmir) : Law Finder Doc id # 2846697
