SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh has rejected a bail application filed by a 60-year-old Anantnag resident in a narcotics case, while simultaneously directing the trial court to urgently revisit its decision to defer proceedings and expedite the trial.
In a judgment pronounced on April 10, Justice Rajnesh Oswal dismissed the bail plea of Afroz Ahmed Sheikh, who has been in judicial custody for nearly five years in connection with a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
The petitioner had sought bail primarily on the ground of prolonged incarceration, arguing that continued detention without conclusion of trial amounted to pre-trial punishment and violated his right to a speedy trial. It was submitted that only six prosecution witnesses had been examined over five years and that the trial had effectively reached the stage of final arguments before being stalled.
The case pertains to a 2020 operation by the Narcotics Control Bureau in Jammu, during which 5.4 kilograms of charas—classified as a commercial quantity—was allegedly recovered from the accused while he was travelling from Anantnag to Gujarat.
Opposing the bail plea, the prosecution argued that the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act barred release on bail in cases involving commercial quantities of contraband. It further contended that the length of custody alone could not be a ground for bail, relying on Supreme Court precedent.
After examining the record, the High Court noted that while the prosecution evidence had already concluded and the case was at the stage of final arguments, the trial court had deferred proceedings indefinitely following the filing of a supplementary complaint against a co-accused.
The Court found that the deferment was carried out in a “mechanical manner” without a reasoned judicial determination, observing that there was no legal impediment to proceeding with the trial against the petitioner independently.
Referring to guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in matters involving additional accused, the Court held that trial courts must determine whether joint or separate trials are warranted and proceed accordingly, rather than halting proceedings altogether.
Despite these observations, the High Court declined to grant bail at this stage, stating that in view of the directions being issued for reconsideration of the deferment issue, the petitioner was not entitled to relief.
The Court directed the trial court to re-examine within 15 days whether deferring the proceedings was legally justified and to proceed in accordance with law thereafter. It further ordered that arguments on charge in the supplementary complaint against the co-accused be concluded within 30 days.
The High Court clarified that if the trial court again decides to defer proceedings, the petitioner would be at liberty to file a fresh bail application.
