SRINAGAR: The Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has cancelled the bail granted to a man accused in a narcotics case involving the alleged recovery of more than 24 kg of ganja, holding that the trial court had failed to adequately consider the mandatory restrictions imposed by the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.
Justice M A Chowdhary, in a judgment pronounced on October 5, directed the accused, Shabir Ahmad Dar of Dogripora in Awantipora, Pulwama district, to surrender before the trial court forthwith and within two weeks at the latest. He will be taken into custody in accordance with law upon surrender.
The High Court set aside the October 28, 2025, order of the Special NDPS Court, Pulwama, which had granted Dar bail in FIR No. 145/2024 registered at Awantipora police station under Sections 8 and 20 of the NDPS Act.
According to the prosecution case, Dar was apprehended on October 10, 2024, and more than 24 kg of ganja was allegedly recovered during the investigation. The court noted that the alleged quantity exceeded the notified commercial threshold of 20 kg, attracting the stringent conditions for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
The High Court observed that the trial court had not recorded adequate satisfaction on the two statutory conditions required for granting bail in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotic substances. These require the court to have reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence and that he is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail.
Justice Chowdhary said these requirements could not be bypassed by relying solely on the general principles governing bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The restrictions under Section 37, the judgment noted, are mandatory and require specific judicial consideration before bail can be granted.
The High Court referred to Supreme Court judgments, including State of Kerala v. Rajesh (2020) and Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal (2022), which emphasised the need to comply with the statutory conditions in NDPS cases involving commercial quantities. It also cited State of Rajasthan v. Indraj Singh (2025), which distinguished between challenging an unlawful bail order and seeking cancellation because an accused had subsequently misused bail.
Rejecting the argument that bail could not be cancelled in the absence of allegations of post-release misconduct, the court said a superior court could set aside a bail order if it was illegal, perverse or resulted from an improper exercise of judicial discretion.
The defence had argued that Dar was granted bail after due consideration by the trial court and that there were no allegations of interference with the investigation or trial, tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses or misuse of the concession.
The High Court held that the absence of such allegations did not resolve the central issue, which was whether the original bail order complied with the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act.
The judgment also referred to the serious social consequences of narcotics-related offences, while clarifying that such considerations could not replace the specific legal tests prescribed under Section 37.
The court clarified that its observations were confined to examining the legality and propriety of the bail order and did not amount to a finding on the merits of the prosecution case or Dar’s guilt or innocence.
It left Dar free to apply for bail afresh before the competent court, which would consider any such application on its own merits, taking into account the stage of the trial and any subsequent change in circumstances.
The High Court allowed the Jammu and Kashmir government’s petition and directed the trial court to ensure compliance with the surrender order. It further said the trial court could adopt coercive measures in accordance with law if Dar failed to appear or surrender within the stipulated period.
