The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir recently granted bail to Touseef Ahmad Khan, who was arrested under the NDPS Act. The court observed that the prosecution had failed to establish prima facie possession of commercial quantity of contraband, primarily due to inconsistencies in the investigation and lack of crucial forensic evidence.
The single-judge bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar, while hearing the bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), took serious note of missing evidence and contradictory statements. The court found that out of 11 bottles of suspected codeine syrup recovered during the raid, only 3 were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for examination.
Read Also:- Allahabad HC Slams Family for Opposing Woman’s Right to Marry Man of Her Choice, Calls It ‘Despicable’
"Prima facie, the aforesaid statement of the head of the raiding team creates a dent in the prosecution story,”
– Justice Sanjay Dhar
The prosecution had claimed that the raid was conducted under the supervision of an Executive Magistrate. However, during the trial, the magistrate clearly stated he was not part of the raid and had only sealed the samples brought by the police. This contradiction raised significant questions about the legitimacy of the seizure and the evidence collected.
Read also:- Delhi High Court: Inconsequential Errors Not a Ground to Set Aside Reasoned Arbitral Award Under Section 34
Additionally, the court noted that the petitioner had no prior criminal record and there was no material to suggest he would commit similar offenses if granted bail. The petitioner had already spent over two years in judicial custody and only two prosecution witnesses, namely the Investigating Officer and FSL expert, were left to be examined.
“There are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of offence of possessing commercial quantity of contraband drugs.”
– Justice Sanjay Dhar
Citing that detailed examination of evidence at the bail stage is impermissible, the court relied on a broad view of facts and found no material justifying prolonged detention. Given the nature of the remaining witnesses—both being government officials—the court also ruled out the likelihood of evidence tampering.
The court thus allowed the bail, subject to certain conditions, including a personal bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties, regular court attendance, and restrictions on leaving the Union Territory of J&K or engaging in similar activities.
Read Also:- Supreme Court grants 7-day stay on demolition of Thane dargah, allows plea to recall Bombay HC order
The case, registered under FIR No. 37/2023 for offenses under Sections 8, 21, and 29 of the NDPS Act, is pending before the Special Judge (NDPS Cases) in Srinagar. As per the prosecution, the accused was allegedly involved in selling narcotics, including to children. However, due to the limited and incomplete chemical analysis of seized material, the claim of "commercial quantity" could not be proven beyond doubt.
“At the stage of bail, meticulous examination of evidence is impermissible.”
– Justice Sanjay Dhar
Appearance:
- Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. Abu Owais Pandit
- For Respondents: Mr. Faheem Nisar Shah, GA, with Ms. Maha Majeed
Case Title: Touseef Ahmad Khan vs UT of J&K & another, 2025
