RAYEES AHMAD DAR Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Sec. 439 of the Cr. P. C seeking bail in FIR No.50/2021 for offences under Sec. 8/21, 29 of NDPS Act registered with Police Station, Bijbehara.

(2.) As per the prosecution case, on 17/3/2021, Police Station, Bijbehara, received information that one person, namely, Sabzar Ahmad Dar has concealed some contraband substance in his residential house with a view to sell the same to the youth. On the basis of this information, FIR No.50 of 2021 was registered and investigation was set into motion. During investigation of the case, residential house of accused Sabzar Ahmad Dar was searched and from there 2600 bottles of Welcyrex containing Codeine Phosphate came to be recovered and seized. The samples of the recovered contraband were sealed and sent to FSL, Srinagar, for chemical examination. On 4/11/2021, accused Sabzar Ahmad Dar came to be arrested. During his custodial interrogation, he disclosed that the said contraband drug was kept in his house by accused Zahid Ahmad Dar and Mudasir Ahmad Dar. Accused Zahid Ahmad Dar came to be arrested on 19/11/2021 and during his custodial interrogation, he made a disclosure statement that he along with Mudasir Ahmad Dar had concealed the contraband drugs in the residence of co-accused Sabzar Ahmad Dar. Accused Zahid Ahmad Dar made a further statement that the said contraband drugs were actually purchased by him from accused Rayees Ahmad Dar, the petitioner herein. The petitioner/accused Rayees Ahmad Dar was arrested on 20/11/2021. It appears that the petitioner herein had approached the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Anantnag, for grant of bail but the application came to be dismissed by the said Court in terms of its order dtd. 1/2/2022.

(3.) It has been contended by the petitioner that he has no knowledge about the recovery of 2600 bottles Welcyrex (Codeine Phosphate) and nothing has been recovered from his possession. It has been further contended that there is no link between the recovery of contraband from co-accused and the petitioner. It is also contended that confessional statement of the co-accused is not admissible in evidence and, as such, on the basis of a statement made by the co-accused, the petitioner cannot be implicated in the instant case. Finally, it has been submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court in case he is admitted to bail.