CRM(M) No.49/2025 c/w Bail App No.17/2025 Page No. 1 of 7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Reserved on: 09.07.2025 Pronounced on: 18.07.2025 CRM(M) No.49/2025 c/w Bail App No.17/2025 UMAIR MAJEED BHAT ... PETITIONER(S) Through: - Mr. F. A. Wani, Advocate. Vs. UT OF J&K …RESPONDENT(S) Through:- Mr. Ilyas Laway, GA. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE JUDGMENT 1) By this common judgment, the above numbered two petitions, one challenging challan arising out of FIR No.124/2024 for offences under Section 8/21 & 29 of NDPS Act registered with Police Station, Anantnag, along with order dated 02.12.2024, whereby charges have been framed against the petitioner and another petition seeking bail in favour of the petitioner in the aforesaid case, are proposed to be disposed of. 2) The facts giving rise to the filing of these two petitions are that on 14.06.2024, police personnel of Police Station, Anantnag, while on Naka duty at GBS Crossing, K. P. Road, Anantnag, intercepted a vehicle (Swift Dzire) bearing registration No.HR29AT-3269, that was proceeding from CRM(M) No.49/2025 c/w Bail App No.17/2025 Page No. 2 of 7 Lazibal towards Khanabal. The driver of the vehicle tried to escape from the spot but he was stopped from doing so. Upon questioning, the driver disclosed his name as Ubair Majeed Bhat, the petitioner herein, a resident of Chanapora, Srinagar. Besides the driver, one more person, who identified himself as Zeeshan Nisar Nadaf, a resident of Chanapora, Srinagar, was also found traveling in the said vehicle. Upon search of the vehicle in question, three plastic cans containing Codeine Phosphate were recovered. The first Can was found to contain about 8 to 10 liters of Codeine Phosphate, the second Can was found to contain about 9 to 10 liters of Codeine Phosphate and third Can was found to contain 4 to 5 liters of Codeine Phosphate. The petitioner and his associate could not give any explanation with regard to possession of the aforesaid substance. The police registered FIR No.124/2024 for offences under Section 8/21 and 29 of the NDPS Act and started investigation of the case. 3) During investigation of the case, the recovered contraband substance was seized and the samples were drawn from out of three cans, whereafter the same were sealed. The remaining contraband substance was also sealed. The sealed contraband and the sealed samples were produced before the Magistrate for their re-sealing and thereafter the same were sent to FSL for examination. The CRM(M) No.49/2025 c/w Bail App No.17/2025 Page No. 3 of 7 petitioner and his associate were arrested on spot. Upon receipt of report of FSL, it was found that the recovered substance is Codeine Phosphate which is a contraband. Thus, offences under Section 8/21 and 29 of NDPS Act were found established against the petitioner and co-accused and the challan was laid before the learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Anantnag. 4) The learned Special Judge vide impugned order dated 02.12.2024, after analyzing the material on record and after hearing the prosecution as well as the defence, came to the conclusion that the petitioner and co-accused are, prima facie, involved in commission of offences punishable under Section 8/15 read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act. Accordingly, charges for the aforesaid offences were framed against the petitioner and the co-accused. 5) The petitioner has challenged the impugned challan as also the order of framing charges by projecting a plea that he had booked consignment of tile cleaner through transport agency UKASD Goods Carriers Registered from Delhi to Srinagar vide consignment No.6827 and that Codeine Phosphate was never recovered from the vehicle in question. It has been submitted that the consignment was booked from Delhi to Srinagar but it was diverted to Anantnag where the alleged occurrence is stated to have taken place. It has CRM(M) No.49/2025 c/w Bail App No.17/2025 Page No. 4 of 7 been further submitted that there is nothing on record of the chargesheet that would show that the petitioner is involved in the commission of alleged offences. It has also been contended that even the Investigating Agency has, during investigation of the case, seized the tax invoice and consignment notice, which clearly show that the tile cleaner was being transported in the vehicle in question. 6) The respondent has contested the petitions by filing its reply, in which the allegations made in the challan have been reiterated and it has been submitted that further investigation of the case is still pending and a supplementary challan shall be produced before the court after the arrest of those accused who are still absconding. 7) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case. 8) Section 227 and 228 of the Cr. P. C lay down the guidelines for framing of charge against an accused. A conjoint reading of these two provisions reveals that at the time of considering whether an accused deserves to be discharged or a charge has to be framed against him, the Court has to hear the parties and consider the material on record of the challan with a view to satisfy itself as to whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. CRM(M) No.49/2025 c/w Bail App No.17/2025 Page No. 5 of 7 In case, upon consideration of the material on record and after hearing the parties, the Court comes to the conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, the charge has to be framed, otherwise the accused has to be discharged. Even a strong suspicion against the accused is sufficient to frame a charge against him. 9) In the present case, the material on record of the challan shows that the petitioner and the co-accused were travelling in a car which was intercepted by the police. It is substantiated from the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Cr. P. C and other material on record that upon search of the car in question, three Cans containing substance resembling Codeine Phosphate were recovered. The first Can was found to contain 11.830 kgs of Codeine Phosphate, second Can was found to contain 10.660 kgs whereas third Can was found to contain 5.310 kgs of Codeine Phosphate. As per report of the FSL, it was confirmed that the recovered substances is Codeine Phosphate which is a contraband. Thus, there is material on record to show that commercial quantity of Codeine Phosphate was recovered upon search of the car which was incharge and possession of the petitioner and co-accused. Thus, there is ample material on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime. CRM(M) No.49/2025 c/w Bail App No.17/2025 Page No. 6 of 7 10) The contention of the petitioner that he was transporting tile cleaner in the car in question, regarding which tax invoice and consignment note has been seized by the police during investigation of the case, cannot be accepted at this stage when the material on record clearly shows that under the cover of aforesaid tax invoice and consignment note, the petitioner was found to be transporting Codeine Phosphate. 11) Similarly, the veracity of the plea of the petitioner that the consignment was to be delivered at Srinagar but it was diverted by the police to Anantnag with a view to falsely implicated the petitioner, cannot be gone into by this Court at this stage. This will be a defence available to the petitioner which he can project before the trial court during trial of the case at appropriate stage. At the time of framing of charges and while considering a petition under Section 528 of BNS, the veracity of these contentions cannot be gone into by holding a mini-trial. 12) For the foregoing reasons, it can safely be stated that there was sufficient material on record of the challan for proceeding against the petitioner for having committed offences under Section 8/15 and 29 of the NDPS Act. The learned trial court has, therefore, rightly framed charges for the aforesaid offences against the petitioner. CRM(M) No.49/2025 c/w Bail App No.17/2025 Page No. 7 of 7 13) Having held that the petitioner is prima facie involved in the offence relating to possession of commercial quantity of contraband, the provisions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted to his case. Therefore, unless it is shown by the petitioner that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence, he cannot be admitted to bail. 14) Once it has been held that the petitioner is prima facie involved in commission of offence relating to possession of commercial quantity of contraband, it cannot be stated that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence. The bar to grant bail as contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act is, therefore, attracted to the instant case. The petitioner, as such, cannot be admitted to bail at this stage. 15) For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in these petitions. The same are dismissed accordingly. 16) A copy of this judgment be sent to the learned trial court for information. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge Srinagar, 18.07.2025 “Bhat Altaf-Secy” Whether the judgment is reportable: YES/NO Mohammad Altaf Bhat I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 18.07.2025 22:30