MUSHTAQ AHMED Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As per the prosecution case, on 29.09.2020, the police of Police of Police Station, Kandi, during the course of checking of vehicles, intercepted one Tempo bearing Registration No. JK11-7057, that was coming from Srinagar towards Kotranka via Mughal Road. During the checking of the said vehicle, one Apple Carton Box with 1240 gms of Poppy straw was recovered from the petitioner, who was travelling as a passenger in the same vehicle. Accordingly, a case FIR No 131/2020 U/S 8/15 NDPS Act of P/S Kandil was registered. On culmination of the investigation, the petitioner was found involved in the commission of offence under Section 8/15 of NDPS Act.

(2.) It appears that the petitioner had filed an application for grant of bail in his favour in the aforesaid FIR before the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Rajouri, who transferred the same to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rajouri. The said application was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajouri vide order dated 01.10.2020. Being aggrieved of the said order, the petitioner has filed the instant petition before this Court for grant of bail in his favour on the grounds that the contraband allegedly shown to be recovered from the possession of the petitioner is an intermediate quantity, as such, the rigor of Section 37 NDPS Act will not apply to the present case and that the present case is to be dealt with as per the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure; that the petitioner is an innocent person having no connection with the offences with which he has been booked and in case he is not released on bail, it will amount to imposition of punishment without trial; that the petitioner is not a habitual offender; that no further recovery is to be effected from the petitioner; and that the petitioner is ready to abide by all terms and conditions that may be imposed by the Court in the event of grant of bail in his favour.

(3.) The respondent has resisted the bail petition by filing reply/status report. In its reply/status report, the respondent has contended that the offence committed by the petitioner/accused is serious, grave and heinous in nature and as such, he cannot claim bail as a matter of right; that the petitioner/accused is involved in transportation and possession of the narcotics which affects the society at large and causes adverse impact on health of the youth; that the investigation of the case is at its infancy; and that the accused, if granted bail at this stage, may not remain available to face the investigation of the case.