SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has granted bail to a man accused in a 2023 drug-death case, holding that the mere sale or supply of a contraband substance does not, by itself, attract the stringent provisions of Section 27-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act relating to financing illicit traffic or harbouring a person engaged in such activity.
Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi, in an order pronounced on August 11, 2026, said the material on record did not prima facie establish that petitioner Yasir Ali had either financed illicit traffic or harboured the co-accused. The Court also noted that the prosecution had cited 30 witnesses but only nine had been examined during the two-and-a-half years since commencement of the trial, making prolonged incarceration a relevant consideration for bail.
Ali had approached the High Court seeking regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, in FIR No. 26 of 2023 registered at Police Station City Jammu. The FIR relates to offences under Sections 8, 21, 22, 27 and 27-A of the NDPS Act and Sections 304, 328, 34 and 201 of the IPC, arising from the death of Umran Khan allegedly after consumption of a contraband substance adulterated with rodenticide.
According to the prosecution case, Khan died after co-accused Waseem Akram allegedly injected him with a substance procured from Ali, which was allegedly mixed with rat poison and became the proximate cause of his death.
Ali, represented by advocate Jameel Ahmad, argued that he was entitled to bail on the principle of parity since Akram, who was alleged to have actually administered the substance to the deceased, had already been granted bail by the Special Judge, NDPS, Jammu, on October 24, 2025.
The defence also contended that the ingredients of Section 27-A were not attracted because there was no material showing that Ali had financed illicit traffic or harboured anyone engaged in such activity. His counsel submitted that the prosecution’s claim that he was a peddler was substantially based on a disclosure statement made during investigation, along with allegations of only two instances of sale.
The defence pointed out that there was no evidence in the form of bank transactions, recovered cash proceeds, call-detail records or other corroborative material demonstrating financial benefit, continuing trade or an organised trafficking activity.
Opposing the bail application, Deputy Advocate General Pawan Dev Singh argued that Ali stood on a different footing from Akram. According to the prosecution, Ali was the source and supplier of the contraband and had himself admitted to being a drug peddler. The prosecution maintained that the substance supplied by Ali was ultimately mixed with rodenticide and administered to the deceased.
The State argued that the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act were attracted and that Ali could not claim parity with Akram because the roles attributed to the two accused were materially different.
The High Court, however, examined whether the material actually supported the invocation of Section 27-A.
“Section 27-A of the NDPS Act is not attracted by proof of sale or supply simpliciter,” Justice Kazmi observed, adding that such conduct falls within Sections 21 and 22 of the Act. To bring a case within Section 27-A, the prosecution must establish that the accused either financed illicit traffic or harboured a person engaged in such traffic, the Court said.
The Court explained that financing under Section 27-A involves the provision of funds, capital or financial support for carrying on illicit traffic and is “distinct from, and going beyond, a solitary or occasional act of sale”.
Similarly, the Court said, harbouring involves concealing or providing shelter or protection to a person engaged in illicit traffic with knowledge of that person’s involvement.
“A person cannot be held to be harbouring another merely because he sold a substance to him,” the Court held.
The Court noted that the material relied upon to attribute the role of financier to Ali consisted of his disclosure statement and references to two alleged sales, without recovered cash, a financial trail or other corroborative evidence of pecuniary benefit or organised trafficking.
It also held that there was no material indicating concealment, provision of shelter or protection to the co-accused.
The Court further observed that a disclosure statement made to an investigating officer, being in the nature of a confession, was inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and could not, at the bail stage, be treated as sufficient material to establish the ingredients of Section 27-A.
“The embargo under Section 37 NDPS Act is attracted by the true nature of the accusation and the material in support thereof, and not by the label of the offence alone,” Justice Kazmi said.
The Court also found significance in the fact that Akram, who was alleged to have actually administered the contaminated substance resulting in the death, had already been granted bail. Ali’s role, on the material then available, was not shown prima facie to travel beyond that of an occasional supplier, the Court said.
“Parity is not a thumb rule,” the Court observed, but added that where the material said to distinguish the petitioner’s case from that of the already enlarged co-accused was “fragile and largely inadmissible”, Ali could not be kept in continued incarceration on a more stringent footing.
The Court separately took note of the pace of the trial. Of the 30 prosecution witnesses, only nine had been examined after two-and-a-half years since the commencement of proceedings. “Conclusion of trial, at this pace, is likely to take further considerable time,” the Court said.
Justice Kazmi held that prolonged pre-trial incarceration, disproportionate to the stage of the trial, could constitute a relevant ground for bail even in cases involving the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, referring to Supreme Court rulings including Rabi Prakash v State of Odisha and Union of India v Md Nawaz Khan.
The Court also noted that only 2.5 grams of contraband had allegedly been recovered from Ali’s residence and recorded that this did not fall within the category of commercial quantity.
While allowing the bail application, the Court made it clear that its observations were only prima facie findings for deciding the bail plea and would not prejudice the trial.
Ali has been directed to furnish a personal bond of Rs 100,000 with two sureties of the like amount. He has also been restrained from leaving Jammu district without prior permission of the trial court and directed not to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence.
He must appear before the trial court on every date of hearing unless exempted, surrender his passport, if any, and refrain from similar activity during the pendency of the trial.
The order was reserved on August 7 and pronounced on August 11, 2026, by Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi in Bail Application No. 18 of 2026.
