Drug traffickers inflict deadly blow on youth, pose grave threat to society: High Court

Srinagar, Nov 21: Underscoring that Drug traffickers inflict a deadly blow on the youth and are a hazard to society, the High Court of J&K and Ladakh Friday denied bail to a 27-year-old accused who has been in custody for over four years over charges of drug peddling.

A bench of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, while dismissing a bail plea by Shahnawaz Ahmad Dar, observed that drug trafficking not only devastates individual lives but also undermines public health, weakens family structures, fuels secondary crimes, and endangers entire communities.

“Granting bail in such cases without strict compliance with the statutory conditions creates a real and tangible risk of the accused returning to the same network and re-offending,” said Justice Nargal in the judgment reserved on November 10 and pronounced today.

“The social cost of permitting such offenders to re-enter the community, even temporarily, is immeasurable”, the court noted and added that the legislative intent behind the NDPS Act is precisely to shield the public from the grave dangers posed by drug traffickers and to prevent the recurrence of offences that carry devastating consequences for present and future generations.

The court further observed that while the factor of prolonged incarceration is undoubtedly a relevant consideration in the adjudication of a bail application, such consideration cannot, in itself, furnish an adequate or independent ground for the grant of bail in cases governed by the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

“The statutory restrictions imposed under Section 37 are mandatory in nature, and the Court is bound to record its satisfaction regarding the twin requirements—first, that there exist reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence, and second, that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail,” the court said as it rejected the contention that the accused has been in custody since 2021.

“This Court is equally mindful of the petitioner’s plea that the petitioner has been in custody for more than four years, having already undergone more than one-third of the minimum sentence prescribed; therefore, in light of such prolonged incarceration, the continuance of the detention of the accused would impinge Article 21”.

However, the record, it said, revealed that as many as ten prosecution witnesses out of thirteen had already been examined, and the trial was now at an advanced stage. “The right under Article 21 operates subject to the ‘procedure established by law’, and Section 37 of the NDPS Act constitutes such valid and stringent statutory procedure”.

The Court cited a recent judgement delivered by the Supreme Court in a case titled Union of India versus Vigin k. Varghese, wherein the apex court has observed that the High Court’s reliance on “prolonged incarceration” and the “likelihood of delay in trial” was insufficient to override the statutory bar on granting bail in cases involving commercial quantity under the NDPS Act.

The court also relied on a Supreme Court Judgment wherein the apex court has noted that at the “stage of granting bail, the Court is not required to enter into a detailed analysis of the evidence in the case.

“Therefore, this Court finds no merit in the petitioner’s reliance on alleged discrepancies, procedural lapses or contradictions in the material collected by the prosecution,” the bench said, adding “Such aspects relate to the appreciation of evidence and the assessment of witness credibility, which are matters to be examined during the course of trial”.

Where the Legislature, in its wisdom, has mandated the recording of specific satisfaction before granting bail in cases involving commercial quantity, the Court cannot dilute or bypass these conditions on general notions of delay or liberty, the Bench said.

“Consequently, the continued custody of the petitioner, in the absence of satisfaction of the twin conditions, cannot be characterised as violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India,” the court said.

The Court, accordingly, dismissed the bail application of Dar and directed the trial court to proceed with the matter expeditiously and make every effort to conclude the trial at the earliest, without unnecessary delay.