JAMEEL AHMAD HAJAM Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 10.01.2018, a police patrol party during a routine checking spotted two persons. They were carrying bags in their hands. They were asked to stop but they tried to give them a slip. They were chased and apprehended. They disclosed their names as Tauqeer Ahmad Hajam S/o Shamus-ud-Din Hajam R/o Checki-Ganastan and Jameel Ahmad Hajam S/o Mohd Ashraf R/o Rakhi-Shilvath. During the search of their bags, Charas in the form of Cakes, weighing 550 gms were recovered from the bag carried by Tauqeer Ahmad Hajam and a quantity of 2 Kgs of the same substance was found within the hold of Jameel Ahmad Hajam. On questioning, they divulged that they had obtained the Charas through illegal means for sale to the customers and, therefore offences under Section 8/20/29 NDPS Act, were found to have been made out against them, as a sequel to which, a case bearing FIR No. 10/2018 was registered against them for the commission of the aforesaid offences at police station Sumbal Bandipora, with which the investigation ensued. The samples of the Charas were taken. These were sent to J &K Forensic Science Laboratory, Srinagar, for examination and analysis. The statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts of the case were recorded and the site plan was also prepared. The accused were arrested. On the completion of the investigation of the case, a charge sheet in terms of Section 173 Cr. PC was laid against the accused/applicants before the Court of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Bandipora.

(2.) In the instant application filed before this Court, the applicant seeks his release on bail. It is stated by the applicant that he has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid FIR on the basis of enmity with one political worker, who has received some amount from him for providing employment which he failed to provide. The applicant has further stated that he filed a bail application before the learned Sessions Judge, Bandipora, who is on Medical Leave and, as such, he had no other option but to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court for the grant of bail in his favour. He will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will abide by the conditions whatsoever are imposed on him, in case he is admitted to bail. In the premises, the applicant has urged that he be admitted to bail for the commission of the aforesaid offences.

(3.) The respondents have resisted and controverted the application of the applicant chiefly on the grounds that the controlled drugs were recovered from the possession of the applicant. The applicant has committed a heinous offence. The menace of the drugs has eaten into the vitals of the society. It is a crime against the society and the societal concerns have to be guarded with zeal and zest. The motion so preferred by the applicant seeking admission to bail in relation to the above referred crime is devoid of any merit and, as such, the same deserves to be rejected, as the quantity of drugs recovered from him falls within the scales of commercial quantity.