Facts
The petitioner was apprehended on July 15, 2025, in possession of 602 grams of Charas
Source reference: p. 2, para. 02Following a disclosure statement made by the petitioner, police apprehended two co-accused individuals at a different location with 498 grams and 318 grams of Charas, respectively
Source reference: p. 2, para. 02The prosecution alleged a conspiracy under Section 29 of the NDPS Act, clubbing the individual recoveries to total 1.416 kilograms—a "commercial quantity" exceeding the 1kg threshold
Source reference: p. 2, para. 04The Trial Court rejected the petitioner's bail on February 21, 2026
Source reference: p. 1-2, para. 01The petitioner approached the High Court arguing that the 602 grams should be treated as "intermediate quantity" and that the clubbing of separate recoveries was illegal
Source reference: p. 2, para. 03Issues
1. Whether individual recoveries of contraband from different accused persons can be clubbed to attract the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act when a conspiracy under Section 29 is alleged.
Source reference: p. 4, para. 08-092. Whether the petitioner satisfied the "twin conditions" for bail in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics.
Source reference: p. 6, para. 14Law Applied
Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 regarding bail jurisdiction
Source reference: p. 1, para. 01Sections 8, 20, 29, and 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. Section 37 mandates that bail cannot be granted for commercial quantities unless the court is satisfied there are "reasonable grounds" to believe the accused is not guilty
Source reference: p. 4, para. 08The court relied on Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwa (2022) to establish that "reasonable grounds" means more than prima facie satisfaction
Source reference: p. 5, para. 10State of Kerala v. Rajesh (2020) to emphasize the non-obstante nature of the Section 37 embargo
Source reference: p. 5, para. 11Reasoning
The Court observed that while the petitioner claimed the recoveries were independent, the prosecution's invocation of Section 29 (conspiracy) and the fact that the petitioner’s disclosure statement led directly to the apprehension of co-accused suggested an organized nexus
Source reference: p. 4-5, para. 09Because the aggregate recovery of 1.416 kilograms exceeds the commercial threshold, the stringent "twin conditions" of Section 37 were triggered
Source reference: p. 6, para. 12The Court reasoned that at the bail stage, it cannot conduct a detailed appreciation of evidence or rule on the admissibility of disclosure statements, as those are matters for trial
Source reference: p. 6, para. 13Therefore, since the petitioner failed to provide "substantial probable causes" to rebut the presumption of guilt, the statutory bar against bail remains operative
Source reference: p. 6, para. 14Holding
The Court answered the issues by holding that when an organized nexus is prima facie evident, the total quantity recovered from all co-conspirators determines the nature of the quantity under the NDPS Act
The Court found no legal infirmity in the Trial Court's order and held that the petitioner failed to satisfy the mandatory requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act
Source reference: p. 6-7, para. 15The bail application was dismissed
Source reference: p. 7, para. 16Original Court PDF
GULZAR AHMAD KHAN PATHAN TH.HIS SONvsUNION TERRITORY OF J AND K TH.S.H.O P/S SRIGUFWARA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in