SHABIR AHMED WANI vs UNION TERRITORY THROUGH SR. ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND ANR.

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR


Bail App. No. 204/2025



Pronounced on: 06. 11.2026
Uploaded on: 06. 11.2026
Operative part or full judgment
: Full
Shabir Ahmed Wani
S/O Nazir Ahmed Wani
R/O Syedpora Iddgah, Srinagar.


Through: Mr. Z.A. Qureshi, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Rehana Fayaz, Advocate.
…..Petitioner
Vs.
1. UT of J&K through
Sr. Additional Advocate General
High Court of J&K, Srinagar/Ladakh
Srinagar.

2. Station House Officer
Police Station,
Rajbagh, Srinagar.



Through: Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Sr. AAG
.…. Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M A CHOWDHARY, JUDGE

JUDGMENT


1. The petitioner, through the medium of this petition filed under
section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, seeks bail, in a case pending before
the Special Court (NDPS Cases), Srinagar arising out of FIR No.
17/2023 registered at Police Station, Rajbagh, Srinagar for the
commission of offences punishable under Sections 8, 21, 27 and 29
of the NDPS Act read with Section 201 IPC.

Bail App No. 204/2025 Page 1 of 8

2. It has been pleaded that the prosecution till date has
examined 18 witnesses out of 33 witnesses; that the bail application
filed by the petitioner before the trial court of Special Judge (NDPS)
cases, Srinagar was rejected, vide order dated 05.08.2025; that
nothing was recovered from the possession of the petitioner and that
the petitioner was arrested on the basis of the disclosure made by
co-accused persons which under law was inadmissible; that the
only evidence on record so far as petitioner is concerned which has
been pressed by the respondents is the transfer of an amount of Rs.
1.50 lacs to the petitioner’s bank account but the fact of the matter
is that the said amount was transferred on account of sale of car,
however, the deal could not mature as a result the petitioner re-
transferred the amount of Rs. 1.48 lacs, to the account of the said
sender on the same day; that from the account of accused Ghariat
Ali Badana, only an amount of Rs. 5,000/- was transferred to the
account of the petitioner; that the witnesses, who have been
examined so far, did not incriminate the petitioner in commission of
offence; that the petitioner has been charged under section 27 when
there is no allegation or evidence, indicating ingredients to
constitute an offence against the petitioner under section 27 of the
Act; that the rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not applicable in
the case of the petitioner as he has neither been charged under
section 19, 24 or 27-A of the NDPS Act nor any narcotic drug or
psychotropic substance was recovered from the possession of the
petitioner.

Bail App No. 204/2025 Page 2 of 8

3. It is has been further pleaded in the petition that the petitioner
has already spent two years and five months in the jail and the
evidence so far recorded, does not involve the petitioner in the
commission of offence, much less for which the petitioner has been
charged under sections 8, 21, 27 and 29 of the NDPS Act. Finally it
has been prayed that the petitioner be enlarged on bail.
4. Pursuant to notice, the respondents filed objections, asserting
therein that the petitioner has been involved in a heinous crime
punishable under sections 8, 21, 27 and 29 of the NDPS Act read
with section 201 IPC, as such, the bail application of the petitioner
has been rightly rejected by the trial court; that the petitioner,
pursuant to a aforementioned criminal conspiracy, was charged to
have smuggled into India, possessed, sold, purchased, transported
and financed the commercial quantity of narcotic substance (Heroin)
and has committed offences under various sections of law,
whereafter the chargesheet was produced before the court on
th
9 of September, 2023 against all the accused and many witnesses
are yet to be examined; that the petitioner was found involved in
purchasing and financing of huge consignment of illegal banned
psychotropic drugs (Heroin) and further selling among youths of the
society; that if the petitioner is released on bail, he may again
indulge in such activities; that the petitioner is involved in the
offences against the society at large which may destroy the youth
beyond any repair, inasmuch as the menace of drug addiction has
engulfed the society and is creating havoc to the families which

Bail App No. 204/2025 Page 3 of 8

needs to be dealt with an iron hand; that there are reasonable
grounds for believing that the petitioner would jump the
concessions of bail, if granted to him by the Court, as such, the
application merits rejection.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. From the perusal of the chargesheet, it transpires that an
amount of Rs. 5,000/- was transferred from account No.
0267040100007223 of J&K Bank account belonging to the
petitioner to account number owned by co-accused Gairat Ali, which
was then transferred to the main accused No. 1-Sajad Ahmad
Badana, as such, the petitioner was involved along with co-accused,
in the financing of narcotics trade.
7. The principal contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is
that no contraband substance has been recovered from his
possession and that his implication in the instant case is found
merely upon the disclosure statements of the co-accused, which are
inadmissible in evidence. It is further contended that the financial
transactions relied upon by the prosecution have been sufficiently
explained by the petitioner and that the evidence recorded so far
does not disclose his involvement in the commission of any of the
alleged offences.
8. On the other hand, the prosecution has specifically alleged
that the petitioner was associated with the co-accused in financing
the narcotics trade. The material collected during investigation, as

Bail App No. 204/2025 Page 4 of 8

reflected in the chargesheet, indicates that an amount of
Rs. 5,000/- was transferred from the bank account of the petitioner
to the account of co-accused Gairat Ali, which was subsequently
transferred to the principal accused, namely, Sajad Ahmad Badana.
The prosecution seeks to rely upon the aforesaid financial
transaction as one of the circumstances connecting the petitioner
with the alleged narcotics trafficking network.
9. It is a settled proposition of law that, while considering an
application for bail, the Court is not required to undertake a
meticulous examination of the evidence or to record a finding
regarding the guilt or innocence of the accused. The exercise is
essentially confined to a ‘prima facie’ assessment of the material
available on record, the nature and gravity of the accusations, the
circumstances in which the offence is alleged to have been
committed, and the statutory limitations governing the grant of bail.
10. The offences alleged in the instant case arise out of an
alleged organized narcotics trafficking operation involving a
substantial consignment of heroin. The menace of drug trafficking
has assumed alarming proportions and poses a serious threat to the
social fabric of society, particularly to the younger generation. The
proliferation of narcotic substances not only jeopardises the health
and well-being of individuals but also undermines the social and
economic stability of families and communities. The gravity of such
offences, therefore, cannot be viewed merely from the standpoint of

Bail App No. 204/2025 Page 5 of 8

an individual transaction but has to be examined in the broader
context of their pernicious consequences upon society.
11. The contention that no narcotic substance was recovered
from the possession of the petitioner, by itself, cannot be regarded
as sufficient to entitle him to the concession of bail. The prosecution
case, as presently projected, is not confined to the physical
possession of contraband but also alleges the involvement of the
petitioner in the financing of narcotics trafficking and his
association with the co-accused in furtherance of the alleged
criminal conspiracy. The absence of recovery from the petitioner,
therefore, is a circumstance which may be examined during trial but
does not, at this stage, conclusively displace the allegations founded
upon the other material collected by the investigating agency.
12. The explanation furnished by the petitioner with regard to
the transfer of Rs. 1.50 lakhs, allegedly arising out of a proposed
sale of a vehicle, as also the subsequent re-transfer of Rs. 1.48
lakhs, involves an appreciation of the factual circumstances and the
financial transactions relied upon by the parties. Similarly, the
nature, purpose and circumstances of the transfer of Rs. 5,000/- to
the account of the co-accused and its subsequent movement to the
account of the principal accused require examination in the light of
the evidence which may be adduced during trial. At this stage, the
Court cannot undertake a detailed scrutiny of such transactions so

Bail App No. 204/2025 Page 6 of 8

as to conclusively accept the explanation furnished by the petitioner
or to discard the prosecution version altogether.
13. The statutory restrictions contained in Section 37 of the
NDPS Act assume significance in the present case, particularly in
view of the prosecution allegation concerning the involvement of the
accused persons in the trafficking of commercial quantity of heroin.
Where the offence alleged involves commercial quantity, the twin
conditions prescribed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are
required to be satisfied before an accused can be enlarged on bail.
The Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for
believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence and
that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. These
conditions are cumulative in nature and constitute substantive
limitations upon the exercise of jurisdiction to grant bail.
14.
In the present case, having regard to the material collected
during investigation, the alleged financial linkage between the
petitioner and the co-accused, the nature of the accusations relating
to the financing of narcotics trafficking, and the stage of the trial,
this Court is not persuaded to record a satisfaction that the
statutory requirements for grant of bail stand fulfilled. The material
presently available does not enable the Court to arrive at the
requisite satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds for believing
that the petitioner is not guilty of the offences alleged against him.

Bail App No. 204/2025 Page 7 of 8

The first condition stipulated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act,
therefore, cannot be said to have been satisfied.
15. The argument that the petitioner has remained in custody
for a period of approximately two years and five months and that
eighteen witnesses out of thirty-three have already been examined,
though relevant, cannot by itself override the statutory restrictions
governing the grant of bail in offences involving commercial quantity
of narcotic substances. The question of prolonged incarceration and
delay in conclusion of trial may, in an appropriate case, furnish an
independent ground for consideration of bail; however, in the facts
and circumstances presently brought to the notice of this Court, the
same does not warrant the grant of bail at this stage.
16. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no legal ground to
enlarge the petitioner on bail. The petition is, accordingly,
dismissed.
8.




Jammu:
06.11.2026
Naresh


(M.A Chowdhary)

Judge


Whether the order is speaking? Yes
Whether the order is reportable? Yes

Bail App No. 204/2025 Page 8 of 8

Naresh Kumar
2026.11.06 18:37
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document