SRINAGAR: A Special Court under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act in Baramulla has rejected the regular bail application of an accused who surrendered after remaining at large for nearly a decade in a commercial quantity charas case, while simultaneously permitting police to carry out further investigation, including a Test Identification Parade (TIP), within a strict 60-day timeframe.
Special Judge (NDPS) Abdul Quayom Mir passed the order on July 9, 2026, disposing of two applications together, one filed by accused Mohammad Rafiq Wani seeking regular bail in FIR No. 68/2016 of Police Station Baramulla under Sections 8/20 of the NDPS Act, and another filed by the Station House Officer seeking permission for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The case dates back to March 24, 2016, when a police naka party led by an Assistant Sub-Inspector was conducting vehicle checking at Kanispora on the Baramulla National Highway. According to the prosecution, police noticed two men carrying polythene bags walking towards Baramulla who attempted to flee after spotting the naka.
Police managed to apprehend one of them, identified as Shakeel Ahmad Wani, from whose bag three kilograms of charas were allegedly recovered. The second suspect escaped, abandoning another bag, which police claimed contained an additional three kilograms of charas. Subsequent forensic examination confirmed the seized substance to be charas, bringing the total recovery to six kilograms, a quantity classified as “commercial” under the NDPS Act.
During the investigation, the arrested accused allegedly identified the fleeing suspect as his brother, Mohammad Rafiq Wani. While police completed the investigation against Shakeel Ahmad Wani and filed a charge sheet, Mohammad Rafiq Wani could not be apprehended. He was subsequently declared a proclaimed offender by the Principal Sessions Judge, Baramulla, on August 24, 2016, and open-ended non-bailable warrants were issued for his arrest.
After remaining untraced for more than ten years, Wani surrendered before the Special Court on May 7, 2026, following which he was remanded to judicial custody and later moved the present bail application.
Appearing through HA Wani & Associates, the applicant denied ever absconding from the law and argued that he had lived openly in public life throughout the intervening years.
The defence submitted that Wani had successfully contested local Sarpanch elections and later fought the District Development Council elections from Sangrama as an independent candidate in 2020, contending that such public participation demonstrated he had never concealed himself from authorities. The applicant argued that the claim of his being untraceable for a decade was false and inconsistent with the fact that he had allegedly received security from the same district police now accusing him of absconding.
The defence further described the prosecution as politically motivated and asserted that there was no independent evidence linking the applicant to the narcotics recovery. It argued that the prosecution case rested entirely on the disclosure statement of his co-accused brother made while in police custody, which, according to the applicant, was inadmissible in evidence.
Counsel also pointed out that most prosecution witnesses had already been examined during the trial against the co-accused, making further custody unnecessary. Seeking bail on humanitarian grounds, the applicant submitted that he was the sole breadwinner of his family, his wife was in an advanced stage of pregnancy and his specially-abled son required his constant care.
Opposing the plea, Public Prosecutor Khursheed Ahmad argued that the applicant had deliberately evaded arrest for more than ten years, frustrating the judicial process.
The prosecution disputed the claim that Wani had remained publicly available, contending that he had shifted political activity outside his native area and altered his physical appearance by growing long hair and a beard to avoid arrest. It further argued that recovery of six kilograms of charas attracted the stringent conditions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, under which bail can be granted only if the court is satisfied that the accused is prima facie innocent and unlikely to commit further offences.
The prosecution also relied on the applicant’s alleged criminal antecedents, informing the court that he was facing prosecution in four other criminal cases involving offences including land grabbing, timber theft, criminal trespass and assault.
During the hearing, police additionally sought permission to conduct further investigation, stating that the applicant’s prolonged absence had prevented investigators from examining his alleged role in the narcotics network. They sought permission to interrogate him regarding the source, transportation, financing and intended distribution of the contraband, conduct a Test Identification Parade and re-examine witnesses whose statements had earlier been recorded in his absence.
The court held that the applicant had failed to satisfy the twin conditions prescribed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act for grant of bail in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotic substances.
Special Judge Mir observed that although no contraband had been recovered from the applicant’s personal possession, the prosecution records indicated that the fleeing suspect had abandoned a bag containing three kilograms of charas and had been identified on the spot by his own brother. The court held that the applicant’s alleged change in appearance, his prolonged absence and his criminal antecedents weighed against the grant of bail.
The court further observed that the absence of physical recovery from an accused does not, by itself, dilute the strict statutory requirements governing bail in commercial quantity NDPS cases.
At the same time, the court accepted the investigating agency’s plea for further investigation, holding that several important aspects of the alleged drug network, including backward and forward linkages, financial channels and intended recipients, remained unexplored because of the applicant’s decade-long absence.
However, the court declined the police request for 15 days’ custody, observing that the statutory period for police remand had already expired since the applicant had remained in judicial custody for more than 60 days after surrendering.
Instead, the investigating officer was permitted to interrogate the accused inside District Jail Baramulla for five days between 10 am and 4 pm after completion of a Test Identification Parade.
The court also directed the investigating agency to approach the District Magistrate, Baramulla, for nomination of an Executive Magistrate to conduct the Test Identification Parade in accordance with the applicable rules.
Emphasising the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial under Article 21, the Special Judge directed that the further investigation be completed within 60 days and the supplementary charge sheet filed before the court on or before September 7, 2026.
The court made it clear that no extension would ordinarily be granted except upon demonstration of exceptional and compelling reasons.
Accordingly, the bail application was dismissed, while the police application seeking permission for further investigation was allowed subject to the conditions imposed by the court.
