Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Umair Majeed Bhat vs Ut Of J&K on 18 July, 2025
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND
LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
Reserved on: 09.07.2025
Pronounced on: 18.07.2025
CRM(M) No.49/2025
c/w
Bail App No.17/2025
UMAIR MAJEED BHAT ... PETITIONER(S)
Through: - Mr. F. A. Wani, Advocate.
Vs.
UT OF J&K ...RESPONDENT(S)
Through:- Mr. Ilyas Laway, GA.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1) By this common judgment, the above numbered two
petitions, one challenging challan arising out of FIR
No.124/2024 for offences under Section 8/21 & 29 of NDPS
Act registered with Police Station, Anantnag, along with
order dated 02.12.2024, whereby charges have been framed
against the petitioner and another petition seeking bail in
favour of the petitioner in the aforesaid case, are proposed
to be disposed of.
2) The facts giving rise to the filing of these two petitions
are that on 14.06.2024, police personnel of Police Station,
Anantnag, while on Naka duty at GBS Crossing, K. P. Road,
Anantnag, intercepted a vehicle (Swift Dzire) bearing
registration No.HR29AT-3269, that was proceeding from
CRM(M) No.49/2025 c/w Bail App No.17/2025 Page No. 1 of 7
Lazibal towards Khanabal. The driver of the vehicle tried to
escape from the spot but he was stopped from doing so.
Upon questioning, the driver disclosed his name as Ubair
Majeed Bhat, the petitioner herein, a resident of Chanapora,
Srinagar. Besides the driver, one more person, who identified
himself as Zeeshan Nisar Nadaf, a resident of Chanapora,
Srinagar, was also found traveling in the said vehicle. Upon
search of the vehicle in question, three plastic cans
containing Codeine Phosphate were recovered. The first Can
was found to contain about 8 to 10 liters of Codeine
Phosphate, the second Can was found to contain about 9 to
10 liters of Codeine Phosphate and third Can was found to
contain 4 to 5 liters of Codeine Phosphate. The petitioner and
his associate could not give any explanation with regard to
possession of the aforesaid substance. The police registered
FIR No.124/2024 for offences under Section 8/21 and 29 of
the NDPS Act and started investigation of the case.
3) During investigation of the case, the recovered
contraband substance was seized and the samples were
drawn from out of three cans, whereafter the same were
sealed. The remaining contraband substance was also
sealed. The sealed contraband and the sealed samples were
produced before the Magistrate for their re-sealing and
thereafter the same were sent to FSL for examination. The
CRM(M) No.49/2025 c/w Bail App No.17/2025 Page No. 2 of 7
petitioner and his associate were arrested on spot. Upon
receipt of report of FSL, it was found that the recovered
substance is Codeine Phosphate which is a contraband.
Thus, offences under Section 8/21 and 29 of NDPS Act were
found established against the petitioner and co-accused and
the challan was laid before the learned Special Judge, NDPS
Cases, Anantnag.
4) The learned Special Judge vide impugned order dated
02.12.2024, after analyzing the material on record and after
hearing the prosecution as well as the defence, came to the
conclusion that the petitioner and co-accused are, prima
facie, involved in commission of offences punishable under
Section 8/15 read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act.
Accordingly, charges for the aforesaid offences were framed
against the petitioner and the co-accused.
5) The petitioner has challenged the impugned challan as
also the order of framing charges by projecting a plea that he
had booked consignment of tile cleaner through transport
agency UKASD Goods Carriers Registered from Delhi to
Srinagar vide consignment No.6827 and that Codeine
Phosphate was never recovered from the vehicle in question.
It has been submitted that the consignment was booked
from Delhi to Srinagar but it was diverted to Anantnag where
the alleged occurrence is stated to have taken place. It has
CRM(M) No.49/2025 c/w Bail App No.17/2025 Page No. 3 of 7
been further submitted that there is nothing on record of the
chargesheet that would show that the petitioner is involved
in the commission of alleged offences. It has also been
contended that even the Investigating Agency has, during
investigation of the case, seized the tax invoice and
consignment notice, which clearly show that the tile cleaner
was being transported in the vehicle in question.
6) The respondent has contested the petitions by filing its
reply, in which the allegations made in the challan have been
reiterated and it has been submitted that further
investigation of the case is still pending and a supplementary
challan shall be produced before the court after the arrest of
those accused who are still absconding.
7) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused record of the case.
8) Section 227 and 228 of the Cr. P. C lay down the
guidelines for framing of charge against an accused. A
conjoint reading of these two provisions reveals that at the
time of considering whether an accused deserves to be
discharged or a charge has to be framed against him, the
Court has to hear the parties and consider the material on
record of the challan with a view to satisfy itself as to whether
there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
CRM(M) No.49/2025 c/w Bail App No.17/2025 Page No. 4 of 7
In case, upon consideration of the material on record and
after hearing the parties, the Court comes to the conclusion
that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused, the charge has to be framed, otherwise the accused
has to be discharged. Even a strong suspicion against the
accused is sufficient to frame a charge against him.
9) In the present case, the material on record of the
challan shows that the petitioner and the co-accused were
travelling in a car which was intercepted by the police. It is
substantiated from the statements of the witnesses recorded
under Section 161 of the Cr. P. C and other material on
record that upon search of the car in question, three Cans
containing substance resembling Codeine Phosphate were
recovered. The first Can was found to contain 11.830 kgs of
Codeine Phosphate, second Can was found to contain
10.660 kgs whereas third Can was found to contain 5.310
kgs of Codeine Phosphate. As per report of the FSL, it was
confirmed that the recovered substances is Codeine
Phosphate which is a contraband. Thus, there is material on
record to show that commercial quantity of Codeine
Phosphate was recovered upon search of the car which was
incharge and possession of the petitioner and co-accused.
Thus, there is ample material on record to connect the
petitioner with the alleged crime.
CRM(M) No.49/2025 c/w Bail App No.17/2025 Page No. 5 of 7
10) The contention of the petitioner that he was
transporting tile cleaner in the car in question, regarding
which tax invoice and consignment note has been seized by
the police during investigation of the case, cannot be
accepted at this stage when the material on record clearly
shows that under the cover of aforesaid tax invoice and
consignment note, the petitioner was found to be
transporting Codeine Phosphate.
11) Similarly, the veracity of the plea of the petitioner that
the consignment was to be delivered at Srinagar but it was
diverted by the police to Anantnag with a view to falsely
implicated the petitioner, cannot be gone into by this Court
at this stage. This will be a defence available to the petitioner
which he can project before the trial court during trial of the
case at appropriate stage. At the time of framing of charges
and while considering a petition under Section 528 of BNS,
the veracity of these contentions cannot be gone into by
holding a mini-trial.
12) For the foregoing reasons, it can safely be stated that
there was sufficient material on record of the challan for
proceeding against the petitioner for having committed
offences under Section 8/15 and 29 of the NDPS Act. The
learned trial court has, therefore, rightly framed charges for
the aforesaid offences against the petitioner.
CRM(M) No.49/2025 c/w Bail App No.17/2025 Page No. 6 of 7
13) Having held that the petitioner is prima facie involved
in the offence relating to possession of commercial quantity
of contraband, the provisions contained in Section 37 of the
NDPS Act are attracted to his case. Therefore, unless it is
shown by the petitioner that there are reasonable grounds
for believing that he is not guilty of such offence, he cannot
be admitted to bail.
14) Once it has been held that the petitioner is prima facie
involved in commission of offence relating to possession of
commercial quantity of contraband, it cannot be stated that
there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not
guilty of such offence. The bar to grant bail as contained in
Section 37 of the NDPS Act is, therefore, attracted to the
instant case. The petitioner, as such, cannot be admitted to
bail at this stage.
15) For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in
these petitions. The same are dismissed accordingly.
16) A copy of this judgment be sent to the learned trial
court for information.
(Sanjay Dhar)
Judge
Srinagar,
18.07.2025
“Bhat Altaf-Secy”
Whether the judgment is reportable: YES/NO
Mohammad Altaf Bhat
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
CRM(M) No.49/2025 c/w Bail App No.17/2025 Page No. 7 of 7
18.07.2025 22:30
[ad_1]
Source link