FIR Against Investigating Officer Cannot Dilute Material Against Accused: J&K&L High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail In NDPS Case
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that the registration of an FIR against the Investigating Officer for alleged misconduct does not automatically weaken or nullify the material collected against an accused in a criminal case, and cannot by itself be a ground to grant anticipatory bail, particularly in cases involving commercial quantity under the NDPS Act.
A bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of an accused booked under Sections 8, 15, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act, observing that the rigours of Section 37 of the Act were clearly attracted and the petitioner had failed to demonstrate reasonable grounds to believe that he was not guilty.
At the outset, the Court noted that the contraband allegedly involved fell within the category of commercial quantity, thereby attracting the stringent conditions prescribed under Section 37 NDPS Act. The Court emphasised that anticipatory bail in such cases can be granted only if the twin conditions under the provision are satisfied, which was not the case here.
The prosecution's case alleged that the petitioner was part of a drug trafficking syndicate, with financial links established through the transfer of ₹1 lakh from a co-accused.
While the petitioner did not dispute receipt of the amount, he claimed it to be legitimate consideration for sale of a vehicle. The Court held that such a defence was a matter of trial, especially when the purported purchaser was himself an accused in the case.
The Court referred to the case diary, which indicated disclosure of the conspiracy by a co-accused, service of notices under Section 67 NDPS Act upon the petitioner, and his failure to appear before the investigating agency, leading to issuance of warrants. On the basis of this material, the Court held that sufficient grounds existed to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence.
The petitioner sought to rely upon the registration of a separate FIR against the then Investigating Officer, alleging demand of bribe for exoneration, to claim anticipatory bail. Rejecting this contention, the Court held that the investigation into the conduct of the Investigating Officer does not automatically wash away the material collected against the petitioner.
The Court noted that the alleged misconduct of the officer pertained to a later point in time, whereas material linking the petitioner to the offence had already surfaced earlier. The investigation into the officer's conduct was held to be an independent proceeding, which could not dilute the seriousness of the allegations against the petitioner under the NDPS Act.
The High Court also distinguished the judgments relied upon by the petitioner, noting that they related to regular bail after prolonged custody or cases where no material was available to link the accused with the offence. In contrast, the present case involved financial links, disclosure statements, and material collected during investigation.
Case-Title: Mohd. Ashraf Dar vs UT of J&K, 2026