 Early Times Report
Jammu, Oct 29: The Special Judge (NDPS Cases), Jammu, Y.P. Sharma, rejected the bail application of Rajinder Singh, an undertrial accused of facilitating narcotics consignments allegedly air-dropped by drones near the Chamliyal border. The order, reserved on September 13 and pronounced on October 25, arises from Crime No. 22/2024 in a complaint titled UOI/NCB, Jammu vs Rajinder Singh & Ors., with the petitioner currently lodged in District Jail Jammu.
According to the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), Singh acted on the directions of co-accused Pupinder Singh to collect drug packets purportedly dropped by drones and deliver them to associates, receiving ₹20,000 per run and an iPhone to aid the operation. The agency claims a net recovery of 344 grams of Tramadol from Singh’s conscious possession—an amount that falls within the “commercial quantity” threshold—invoking the stringent bar on bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Appearing for the applicant, Advocate argued that a CRCL, New Delhi report dated January 7, 2025 did not test positive for heroin and instead showed the presence of Acetaminophen, Caffeine, Dextromethorphan, Tramadol and Diazepam, casting doubt on the prosecution’s initial seizure narrative that referred to heroin. The defence flagged discrepancies in sample weight and suggested that either the sample tested was different from the one seized or no heroin recovery ever occurred, stressing that such contradictions demolished the prosecution’s case. It was also pointed out that the prosecution had, at one stage, moved to proceed for Tramadol based on the CRCL result before subsequently withdrawing that application on August 20, 2025. The petitioner emphasized seven to eight months of custody and parity with co-accused Pupinder Singh, who was earlier granted bail.
Special Public Prosecutor Ajay Singh Manhas, for NCB, countered that Tramadol is a scheduled psychotropic substance and that field testing is only indicative; the final FSL/CRCL report governs at the bail stage. He submitted that the alleged 344-gram recovery is far above the commercial quantity threshold (250 g and above) and that Singh’s role forms part of a larger inter-state network—an activity with grave societal impact akin to narco-terrorism. The prosecution also cited the petitioner’s purported voluntary statement and urged the court to treat procedural lapses, if any, as non-fatal at the bail stage.
Rejecting bail, the court held that in prosecutions involving commercial quantities, the rigour of Section 37 applies and the twin conditions must be satisfied: reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and that he is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail. On the present material, the court found no such grounds. It underscored that discrepancies between initial seizure notes and the final laboratory finding do not, by themselves, justify bail when the contraband—here, Tramadol—remains a prohibited psychotropic substance and the recovery is from the accused’s conscious possession. Noting the gravity of allegations and the pattern of drone-enabled trafficking across the international border, the court described the case as serious and carrying wider public ramifications, particularly for youth.
In doing so, the court relied on a series of Supreme Court precedents reiterating stringent bail standards in NDPS cases, including NCB v. Mohit Aggarwal (2022), State of Meghalaya v. Lalrintluanga (2024), NCB v. Kashif (2025) and Bharat Ambale v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025). These decisions emphasize that in commercial-quantity matters, “negation of bail is the rule and grant is an exception,” and that procedural lapses alone do not entitle an accused to bail where recovery and conscious possession are otherwise supported at this stage.
The charges yet to be framed, the court concluded that releasing Rajinder Singh would not be warranted under the statutory threshold, and dismissed the bail plea. The case will proceed in the trial court. (JNF) |
