HC denies bail to Delhi resident in narcotics case

Srinagar, Apr 18: The High Court of J&K and Ladakh has declined to grant bail to a man from Delhi arrested in January last year in a case registered at Police Station Ganderbal, for allegedly conspiring with the co-accused in procuring and supplying narcotic substances. 

A bench of Justice Sanjay Parihar dismissed the bail plea of MD Monish who was arrested in case (FIR No 276/2024) under Sections 8/21 and 29 of the NDPS. 

Monish’s primary contention was that no contraband had been recovered from his conscious possession and that his implication was based solely on disclosure statements and alleged monetary transactions lacking evidentiary value.

 The Court, while relying on a Supreme Court’s decision, noted that “conspiracy is generally hatched in secrecy and direct evidence is seldom available”. The conspiracy, the court said, can be inferred from surrounding circumstances, conduct of parties and chain of events. 

“Section 29 of the NDPS Act makes conspiracy itself a substantive offence, and once there is material indicating meeting of minds, the rigours of Section 37 would equally apply.”

The Court observed that the case involves recovery of 141 bottles of codeine-based manufactured drugs, amounting to commercial quantity, thereby attracting the stringent bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

It noted that the investigation revealed consistent telephonic contact between MD Monish and co-accused, along with monetary transfers made shortly before the recovery. These transactions establish a “live and proximate link” between the accused and the seized contraband, the Court said.

In response to the contention that absence of recovery weakens the prosecution case, the Court noted that conspiracy under Section 29 of the NDPS Act is a substantive offence and can be inferred from circumstantial evidence including conduct and financial dealings.

Monish was arrested on 13 January 2025 from Delhi on the allegation that he conspired with co-accused, Muhammad Rafiq Shah in procuring and supplying narcotic substances, which were subsequently recovered in substantial quantity from the possession of the co-accused.

The Court reiterated that in cases involving commercial quantity, bail can only be granted if there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty, a threshold the petitioner failed to meet.

Moreover, the Court observed that charges have already been framed, making it difficult to arrive at such a satisfaction at this stage.

With observation that the allegations are grave and have wider societal implications, the Court dismissed the bail plea.