Nasir Kareem @APPELLANT@Hash State Of Jammu & Kashmir.

By the medium of this petition the petitioner seeks his release on bail in case bearing FIR no. 89/2018 registered against him and three others on

17.06.2018 by the respondent for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 8/20/21/22/29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances Act.Â

The case of the prosecution is that on 17.06.2018 at about 11.20 pm a Police Patrol Party of Police Station Bhaderwah intercepted a vehicle bearing

registration No. JK06/9717 at Gupt Ganga, in which besides the petitioner, three more persons were travelling. It is contended that on the search of

these persons 02 gms of Herion, 150 gms of Charas and 01 kg of Herion were recovered from Irshad ahmed S/o Ghulam nabi, Irshad ahmad S/o

Nazir Ahmed and Mehboob Ahmed respectively and besides this, an amount of Rs. 2, 49, 900/- hidden inside the vehicle belonging to the petitioner-

accused was also recovered. The petitioner filed an application for bail before the learned Sessions Judge Bhaderwah, which came to be rejected by

an order dated 12.07.2018 passed by him primarily on the ground that a commercial quantity of Narcotics has been recovered from the accused

persons who were found travelling together in the vehicle which belonged to the petitioner.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

There appears to be no error in the order of learned Sessions Judge Bhaderwah. The petitioner and the co-accused appear to have worked in

concert. They travelled together in the vehicle owned by the petitioner. The quantity of drugs recovered from the associates of the petitioner, falls

within the limits, bounds and the scales of a commercial quantity to which the rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act applies in all the fours. If a case

falls within the scope and definition of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, grant of bail has to be considered on the agility of the said provision in addition to

other limitations prescribed under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, which reads as follows:

“[37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable:- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)-

a) Every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable;

b) No person accused of an offence punishable for [offence under section 19 or section 24 or section 27 A and also for offences involving

commercial quantity] shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless:-

(i) The public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and

(ii) Where the public prosecution opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of

such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

(2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force, on granting of bail.]â€​

From a bare perusal of Section 37 quoted above, it is evident that no person can be enlarged on bail, if he is found to be in the possession of a

commercial quantity of Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances Act or offences under Section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27A unless the Court

comes to the conclusion that the accused is not guilty of such an offence. These restrictions are provided in addition to the checks and curbs imposed

under the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law governing the grant of bails.Â

In the present cases, as is reiterated here, on the search of the persons travelling in the vehicle a huge quantity of controlled drugs was found in their

possession. Not only this a sizeable amount of money was also recovered from the vehicle owned by the petitioner in which he and his associates

were travelling at the moment. Therefore, it can well be said that the petitioner is prima facie involved in the commission of the offences aforesaid

and there is no reasonable ground to believe that he is not guilty of such offences. The natural or unpresentable human propensity to always eat the

forbidden fruits will ever find means and ways to frustrate the law and rules prohibiting the use of all such stuff.

In view of the above, the application of the petitioner is devoid of any merit. It entails dismissal and is, accordingly dismissed. However, this order

shall not preclude the petitioner from moving a successive application before the Trial Court for his release on bail which shall be decided on its own

merits.Â

Dismissed as such.