Srinagar, August 10, KDC: Observing that an accused otherwise entitled to bail cannot be kept behind bars merely to teach him a lesson despite the alarming rise in drug trafficking, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a petition filed by the Union Territory challenging the grant of bail to a suspect recovered with intermediate quantity of heroin.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar dismissed the petition filed by the UT administration through Senior Additional Advocate General Mohsin Qadiri and Government Advocate Faheem Nisar, which challenged the February 6, 2026 order passed by the Special Judge NDPS Cases, Srinagar.
The trial court had granted bail to Nadeem Qadir Chopan in connection with FIR No. 98/2025 registered at Police Station Nishat under Sections 8, 21, and 29 of the NDPS Act.
The prosecution had assailed the bail order contending that the trial court failed to appreciate the gravity of drug trafficking and pointed out that the respondent was a habitual offender already involved in another drug case (FIR No. 8/2025) at Police Station Nishat.
Rejecting the state’s contentions, Justice Sanjay Dhar noted that the 5.04 grams of heroin recovered from the respondent falls within intermediate quantity parameters, meaning the stringent statutory rigours for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply.
Addressing the argument on drug menace, the High Court stressed the necessity of balancing societal interest with constitutional safeguards.
“It is true that the menace of drug trafficking has assumed alarming proportions but for this reason only, an accused who is otherwise entitled to bail cannot be kept behind the bars to teach him a lesson. The interests of the society have to be balanced with right of an accused to fair trial and his right to liberty,” the Bench held.
The Court further said that keeping an accused in prolonged incarceration after the charge sheet has already been filed would adversely impact his ability to prepare an effective defence, thereby infringing upon his right to a fair trial.
Regarding the state’s claim of prior criminal involvement, the Court observed that the prosecution failed to bring any material record regarding the previous FIR to the notice of the Special Judge during bail hearings. (KDC)
