“Drug Traffickers Inflict Deadly Blow On Youth”: J&K&L High Court Rejects Bail In Commercial Quantity NDPS Case

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has reiterated that drug traffickers inflict a deadly blow on the youth and are a hazard to society, and the social cost of permitting such offenders to re-enter the community, even temporarily, is immeasurable.

With these observations, Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal on Friday dismissed the bail application of a 27-year-old accused from whose possession a commercial quantity of contraband was allegedly recovered.

While dismissing his plea, the court recorded,

“Drug traffickers inflict a deadly blow on the youth.. Their activities undermine public health, erode family structures, fuel secondary crimes, and threaten communities,”

It added, “Granting bail without strict compliance with the statutory conditions creates a real and tangible risk of the accused returning to the same network and re-offending. The social cost of permitting such offenders to re-enter the community, even temporarily, is immeasurable.”

Background:

The case stems from an FIR which came to be registered when the petitioner, Shahnawaz Ahmad Dar, was apprehended during a naka check and authorities allegedly recovered bottles containing Chlorine Phosphate from his vehicle, classified as a commercial quantity under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The seized samples were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), which confirmed the contents. A challan was filed, and so far 10 of the 13 prosecution witnesses, including the complainant, an Executive Magistrate, and an FSL expert, have been examined.

Dar moved the trial court, and later the High Court, for bail. He challenged the legality of the recovery, suggesting procedural lapses like a delay in FSL testing, the recovery memo being prepared before FIR registration, absence of independent witnesses, and contradictions among witnesses. He also argued his prolonged incarceration (over four years) violated his fundamental right to life and liberty. The prosecution strongly opposed, relying on the statutory bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Court's Observations:

Justice Nargal began with a firm primer on the applicability of Section 37 the NDPS Act since the seized substance was of commercial quantity, where the court is bound to impose the “stringent twin conditions” for bail, first, “reasonable grounds” to believe the accused is not guilty, and second, that he would not commit any offence while on bail.

Invoking controlling precedents such as NCB v. Mohit Aggarwal (2022), UOI v. Ajay Kumar Singh @ Pappu (2023), State v. B. Ramu (2024), and UOI v. Vigin K. Varghese (2025), the court reiterated that these conditions are “mandatory in nature.” There is no room for casual interpretation as the burden is heavy, and the presumption of innocence must be navigated with statutory restraint, the court emphasized.

On the facts, the Court noted the petitioner's failure to dispute the actual recovery. He did not meaningfully challenge the fact that contraband was found in his possession. In the Court's view, the record offers no material to support the conclusion that there are reasonable grounds to believe he is not guilty.

The bench pointed that at the bail stage, it is not required to enter into a detailed probe of evidence a point drawn from Ms. Y v. State of Rajasthan (2022). What matters is whether the initial threshold under Section 37 can be crossed, not whether the defense narrative stands up to full evidentiary scrutiny, it underscored.

Regarding his prolonged detention, Justice Nargal rejected the argument that mere length of incarceration can alone tilt the balance in favor of bail. While four years is substantial, the trial is already at an advanced stage with multiple witnesses examined. Importantly, the Court highlighted that the right to personal liberty under Article 21 must operate within “procedure established by law”, and Section 37 constitutes exactly such a procedural safeguard.

Echoing the Supreme Court's ruling in Vigin K. Varghese (2025), the Court held that delay even substantial delay does not automatically vitiate the statutory bar or override the legislative intent underpinning NDPS bail restrictions.

On the allegations of procedural lapses including delay in FSL testing, contradictions among witnesses, and alleged violation of sections like 42, 50, 52, 52A, and 57 of the NDPS Act the Court said these are matters of appreciation of evidence, reserved for the trial stage. The High Court declined to insist on further bail simply because of such claimed inconsistencies, underscoring that prima facie argument does not amount to “reasonable grounds” under Section 37.

Delving deep into the matter Justice Nargal did not mince words when it comes to the social implications of narcotics trafficking. He observes that drug traffickers are not mere lawbreakers, they are destroyers of youth, public health, and social fabric. He warned that granting bail to such individuals risks enabling them to return to their networks and re-offend, a risk the Court is unwilling to take lightly.

In view of these findings the High Court rejected the bail application. It directed the trial court to expedite proceedings and bring the case to a swift conclusion.

Case Title: Shahnawaz Ahmad Dar Vs UT Of J&K

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment