Case Details: Asif Ahmad Dar vs. UT Th. Police Station, Bijbehara (2025) 36 Centax 343 (J & K and Ladakh)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Mohd Yousuf Wani, J.
- Shri Shahbaz Sikander, Advocate, for the Petitioner.
- Shri Ilyas Nazir Laway, GA, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The accused, a teenager, was apprehended after the recovery of bottles containing manufactured drugs and was taken into custody under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The accused remained in judicial custody for more than 2.5 years while the trial was pending before the Trial Court. During the course of proceedings, it was noted from the trial records that a substantial number of listed prosecution witnesses were yet to be examined, indicating that the trial was likely to take considerable time to conclude. The accused filed a successive bail application, contending on prolonged incarceration and delay in trial. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that although offences under the NDPS Act are cognizable and non-bailable, the circumstances of prolonged detention and the slow progress of the trial were relevant factors to be considered in the bail application. It was observed that the presumption under Sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act could arise only after the prosecution establishes foundational facts through cogent evidence during trial. The court further noted that statutory safeguards, such as those contained in Sections 52(1) and 57, must be complied with after search, seizure, and arrest, and their compliance would be examined during trial. Taking into account the stage of the proceedings, the earlier grant of bail to a co-accused and the likely delay in conclusion of the trial, the court considered it appropriate to grant bail without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. Accordingly, the accused was admitted to bail subject to furnishing personal bonds and surety in accordance with the law.
List of Cases Cited
- Chet Ram v. State of H.P. — Cr. MP (M) No. 1806 of 2025, decided on 26-8-2025 — Referred [Para 4]
- Firdous Ahmad Wani v. U.T. of J & K — 2021 SCC Online J&K 351 — Referred [Para 4]
- Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, U.T. of Delhi — (1981) 1 SCC 6081 — Referred [Para 1]
- Gur Bakash Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab — AIR 1980 S.C. 1632 — Followed [Para 13]
- Kaftar Singh v. State of Punjab — (1994) 3 SCC 569 — Referred [Para 1]
- Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. — AIR 1953 SC 1295 — Referred [Para 1]
- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India — (1978) 1 SCC 248 — Referred [Para 1]
- Mohd. Idrish Ali v. State NCT of Delhi — Bail Appl. No. 776 of 2025 & Crl. M.A No. 13452 of 2025, decided on 1-7-2025 by Delhi High Court — Referred [Para 4]
- P. Rathinam/Nagbhusan Patnaik v. Union of India — (1994) 3 SCC 394 — Referred [Para 1]
- Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi — (2001) 4 SCC 280 — Followed [Para 16]
- Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation — AIR 2012 SC 830 — Followed [Paras 14, 15, 18]
- Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra — (2011) 1 SCC 694 — Followed [Paras 1, 19]
- State of A.P. v. Chala Ramkrishna Reddy — (2000) 5 SCC 712 — Referred [Para 1]
- State of Rajasthan v. Balchand — AIR 1977 S.C. 2447 — Followed [Para 11]
- State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi — (2005) 8 SCC 21 — Followed [Para 17]
- Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) — 2020 SC Online 98 — Followed [Para 19]
- Vimal Rajput v. State of U.P. — Criminal Misc. Bail App. No. 3604 of 2024, decided on 5-6-2024 — Referred [Para 4]
