SRINAGAR: The Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has dismissed a woman’s plea challenging the framing of charges against her in an alleged heroin trafficking case, observing that the material collected during the investigation prima facie provided sufficient grounds for proceeding against her.
Justice Sanjay Parihar, while dismissing the petition filed by Reena under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, held that the High Court could not undertake a detailed assessment of the evidence at the stage of framing charges, as its probative value would have to be examined during the trial.
The petitioner had challenged an order dated July 30, 2026, passed by the Special Judge (Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances), Jammu, framing charges against her under Sections 8, 21(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.
The High Court observed that, at the stage of framing charges, the court is required to determine whether the material collected during the investigation discloses sufficient grounds for proceeding against an accused, rather than undertaking a meticulous appreciation of evidence.
“In the present case, the material collected during investigation, including the alleged recovery of contraband and other incriminating articles, prima facie furnishes sufficient grounds for proceeding against the petitioner,” the court said.
It further observed that the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner essentially related to matters requiring appreciation of evidence and could appropriately be examined during the trial.
“No patent illegality, perversity or abuse of the process of Court has been demonstrated so as to justify interference with the impugned order,” Justice Parihar held, dismissing the petition.
According to the prosecution case, the matter originated on October 8, 2025, when police from Bahu Fort Police Station, acting on prior information, apprehended accused Vishal Kumar near Wave Mall at Narwal in Jammu while he was riding a scooty bearing registration number JK02CP-6203.
During his personal search, police allegedly recovered 275 grams of a heroin-like substance from a transparent polythene bag. A digital weighing machine was also recovered from the vehicle’s storage compartment.
During the investigation, Vishal Kumar allegedly disclosed that he had purchased the contraband, commonly known as chitta, from the petitioner for further sale to prospective customers.
The prosecution further alleged that Reena was arrested the following day and, during interrogation, disclosed that she had concealed heroin, cash and a digital weighing machine at her residence in Rajeev Nagar, Narwal.
After obtaining a search warrant from the competent court, the investigating agency searched her house in the presence of an Executive Magistrate. During the search, 55 grams of a heroin-like substance, Rs 33,490 in cash and a digital weighing machine were allegedly recovered from an almirah on the second floor of the house.
Following completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against Vishal Kumar, Reena and five other accused under Sections 8, 21, 22, 27-A and 29 of the NDPS Act and Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
The trial court, through its order dated July 30, 2026, framed charges against Vishal Kumar and Reena under Sections 8, 21(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act, while discharging them of the offences under Section 27-A of the NDPS Act and Section 111 of the BNS. Accused Sheetal was charged under Section 8/21(b) of the NDPS Act, while the remaining accused were discharged.
The case is currently at the stage of recording prosecution evidence.
Reena approached the High Court seeking quashing of the trial court’s order, contending that it amounted to an abuse of the process of law. Her counsel, Arif Zargar and Nikhil Kumar, appeared on her behalf. No counsel for the UT of Jammu and Kashmir was recorded in the order.
The High Court clarified that its observations were confined to the adjudication of the petition and would not prejudice either party during the trial, which, it directed, should proceed uninfluenced by those observations.
In a separate procedural direction in the connected proceedings, the court ordered that Bail Application No. 261/2026 be segregated from CRM(M) No. 1283/2026 and listed separately on December 2, 2026. Notice was also directed to be issued to the respondent, returnable within three weeks, subject to the petitioner completing the requisite steps for service within one week.
