Srinagar, Sep 18: The High Court of J&K and Ladakh has declined to grant bail to an accused in a case involving the alleged seizure of 4,944 Spasmo-Proxyvon Plus capsules.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Parihar dismissed the bail plea of the accused, Asim, observing that the material collected during the investigation prima facie disclosed a link between the accused and the recovered consignment.
Asim was arrested by police following the registration of FIR No. 25/2023 at Police Station Maharaj Gunj, Srinagar, under Sections 8, 22, 29, 27-A and 68-E of the NDPS Act.
The prosecution’s contention is that during checking at Babadamb Road near Hotel Azher on July 18, 2023, police intercepted co-accused Shabir Ahmad Sheikh and allegedly recovered a black bag containing 618 strips comprising 4,944 capsules of Spasmo-Proxyvon Plus. The investigation allegedly linked the petitioner, Asim, with the co-accused through call-detail records and banking transactions.
Monetary transactions amounting to Rs 2,53,850 took place between the accused from April to July 2023, and the co-accused had allegedly procured the consignment from Asim, who was arrested on September 12, 2023, and has remained in judicial custody since then, according to the prosecution.
Asim’s contention was that no contraband had been recovered from his possession and that the banking transactions were ordinary business dealings. Moreover, he questioned the prosecution’s chain of custody and raised other grounds relating to the alleged offence and his arrest.
While refusing bail to the accused, the Court, however, held that the alleged monetary transactions, call records, prior dealings and subsequent recovery, when considered together, prima facie disclosed a “live link” between the petitioner and the co-accused.
The absence of physical recovery from the petitioner, by itself, could not conclude the matter in his favour at the bail stage, the Court noted.
While the Court pointed out that the recovered quantity was stated to be commercial quantity, it held that the application had to be examined in light of the restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
The Court observed that the material before it did not provide reasonable grounds, at this stage, to believe that the petitioner was not guilty of the alleged offences.
The Court also considered the prolonged incarceration of the petitioner and the constitutional importance of a speedy trial. However, it noted that seven witnesses had already been examined and the trial was progressing before the Special Court dealing with NDPS cases at Srinagar.
With the conclusion that there was no ground to overcome the statutory embargo under Section 37, the Court rejected the bail plea.
