BABER AHMED MALIK Vs. U.T. OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is facing trial before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Doda ["the trial Court"] and has filed instant petition in terms of Sec. 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) seeking bail in FIR No 04/2025 under Sec. 8/21/22/29 NDPS Act.

(2.) Prosecution case in brief is that on January 3, 2025, police party of Police Post, Khellani during naka checking duty, near Police Post, Khellani, intercepted a bus bearing registration No. JK02CN-0087 coming from Jammu towards Bhaderwah. When the bus was stopped, the driver of the vehicle alighted quickly and on sensing the presence of the police, tried to whisk away. This arose suspicion, but, after a short chase, the police party apprehended the driver, who on enquiry disclosed his identity as Bashir Ahmed S/o Shah Mohd. (the petitioner herein). On search, a polythene bag containing heroine weighing 10-12 grams alleged to have been recovered. Accordingly, the petitioner was apprehended and this information on being transmitted to police station, Doda, a formal FIR came to be registered and investigation commenced for the commission of offence under Sec. 8/21/22 NDPS Act. During the course of investigation, it surfaced that the petitioner was allegedly involved in drug trafficking in and around Doda town with the connivance of Mst. Shakeela Begum @ Taya, a resident of Doda. It has further emerged that the co-accused has been procuring heroin from alleged drug suppliers operating in Bari Brahmana, Samba and Indra Chowk, Jammu, for onward sale to the youth of District Doda and adjoining areas. It has been further unraveled during investigation that cash transaction has also exchanged hands between the accused who are previously involved in similar cases and are facing trial.

(3.) Now, the case set up by the petitioner is that the alleged seized quantity of heroin falls in intermediate quantity and, therefore, the rigors of Sec. 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted. It is further contended that his pre-trial detention is punitive in nature and not warranted under law; as such, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail.