news details |
|
|
| HC denies bail to alleged Heroin kingpin | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Aug 18: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has rejected the bail plea of Tanzeer Ahmad Najar, an accused in a narcotics trafficking case involving recovery of 695 grams of heroin, holding that bank transactions, Call Detail Records (CDRs) and other material collected during investigation prima facie pointed towards his alleged involvement in a wider drug-peddling network.
Justice Shahzad Azeem, while dismissing Bail Application No. 33/2026, observed that though the confessional or disclosure statement of a co-accused cannot by itself be used to keep another accused behind bars, the prosecution case against Najar was not founded solely on such a statement.
Najar is facing trial for offences under Sections 8/21/22/29 of the NDPS Act and Section 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. His earlier bail plea had been rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Udhampur, exercising special jurisdiction under the NDPS Act.
The defence argued that no contraband was recovered from the petitioner and that, apart from the disclosure statement of a co-accused, there was no legally admissible material connecting him with the alleged crime. It was further contended that he had remained in custody for nearly one-and-a-half years and that the alleged use of his wife's bank account could not by itself justify further incarceration.
Opposing the plea, the Union Territory alleged that Najar was part of a larger conspiracy engaged in narcotics trafficking for monetary gain and was the alleged "kingpin" who supplied heroin to other accused.
According to the prosecution case noticed by the High Court, police intercepted a Maruti car bearing registration No. JK13B-1343 during naka checking and allegedly recovered 695 grams of heroin concealed beneath a seat from its occupant, Mohammad Ashraf. FIR No. 163/2024 was subsequently registered at Police Station Chenani.
During investigation, the name of Mohd Ishaq Shah alias Gulabo surfaced as an alleged supplier. Investigators claimed that CDRs and other material linked Shah to Mohammad Ashraf and the alleged supply of narcotics.
The disclosure statement of Shah thereafter allegedly led investigators to Najar, who was projected as the person supplying narcotics further up the chain.
The prosecution alleged that around 700 grams of heroin had been purchased from Najar for Rs 1.80 lakh, of which Rs 1.20 lakh was transferred to the bank account of his wife, Iqra Bano, while another Rs 60,000 was allegedly transferred to the account of Shafayat Ahmad Khan on Najar's instructions.
The Court also took note of the prosecution allegation that more than ?11 lakh was deposited in Iqra Bano's J&K Bank account during 2024 through online transfers and cash deposits. Investigators had also collected CCTV footage from Cash Deposit Machines, while the petitioner's wife allegedly stated during investigation that her account was being operated by her husband.
Justice Azeem observed that apart from the disclosure statement, there was prima facie material in the form of banking transactions, CDRs, alleged conversations and other evidence, which, if taken at face value at the bail stage, tended to connect the petitioner with the alleged offences.
The Court observed that the petitioner had been sent up for trial for alleged trafficking of a commercial quantity of heroin pursuant to a "well-knit conspiracy", and formal charges had already been framed by the Trial Court.
The High Court also considered Najar's alleged criminal antecedents. The record reflected his involvement in FIR No. 94/2021 of Police Station Karnah, involving alleged recovery of 4 kg heroin, besides FIR No. 03/2025 of Police Station Parimpora, involving alleged recovery of 9.345 kg narcotics. The order also records that he had previously been detained under the Public Safety Act.
Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in Narcotics Bureau v. Mohit Agarwal, the High Court reiterated that long custody, filing of the chargesheet or delay in commencement of trial cannot by themselves justify bail where the stringent conditions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted.
The Court further observed that the petitioner's alleged conduct and previous involvement in similar cases gave rise, at this stage, to an apprehension regarding repetition of such offences if released on bail.
Significantly, Justice Azeem made it clear that a confessional statement of a co-accused is inadmissible against another accused and cannot, standing alone, become the basis for continued incarceration.
The Court observed that had the disclosure statement been the only material against Najar, his continued detention could have raised serious concerns under Article 21 of the Constitution.
However, in the present case, the Court found that the disclosure statement had merely provided the initial lead to investigators, after which the prosecution claimed to have collected independent material including banking records, CDRs and alleged conversations.
The High Court clarified that all such material would have to be proved during trial and that it was expressing no final opinion regarding its admissibility, reliability or evidentiary value.
Considering the stage of trial, alleged antecedents, nature of accusations and larger societal interest, the Court held that Najar was not entitled to bail at this stage and dismissed his application.
The Court clarified that all observations made in the order were confined to adjudication of the bail plea and would not influence the Trial Court while deciding the case on merits.
(JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
