news details |
|
|
| Court denies bail to 2 in 271-gram Heroin recovery case | | |
Early Times Report
Jammu, Nov 4: Observing that the gravity of drug-related offences, their impact on society and the possibility of interference with an ongoing investigation cannot be ignored, the Special Judge (NDPS Cases), Jammu, has rejected the bail applications of two accused allegedly involved in a case concerning the recovery of over 271 grams of heroin. Special Judge Parvaiz Iqbal dismissed the bail applications of Dheeraj Sumbria (29), son of Satish Kumar, resident of Manmella Jib, Udhampur, and Rahul Dhar (38), son of Devi Dass, resident of Rehmbal Garhi, Udhampur, who were arrested in connection with a case registered at Police Station Khour under Sections 8, 21, 22, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.
According to the prosecution, a police team headed by PSI Salman-ud-Din intercepted a black Hyundai Verna car during naka checking at Dhaleri on September 10, 2026, and apprehended the two accused. Police reported the recovery of a total of 271.55 grams of heroin in the case.
The prosecution alleged that approximately 148 grams of heroin was recovered from Rahul Dhar and 117 grams from Dheeraj Sumbria. During further investigation, another accused, Veeru Anuragi, was arrested, and six grams of heroin was allegedly recovered from his possession.
Senior Advocate Sunil Sethi appeared on behalf of Dheeraj Sumbria, while Advocates Sachin Dogra, Amit Pathania and Gourav Phounsha represented Rahul Dhar. Special Public Prosecutor Sunil Kumar opposed the bail applications on behalf of the prosecution.
The defence contended that the recoveries attributed to the accused individually fell within the intermediate quantity category and could not be clubbed together to treat the contraband as commercial quantity merely by invoking Section 29 of the NDPS Act.
It was argued that the stringent restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not apply unless sufficient evidence established a conspiracy among the accused.
Opposing the submissions, the Special Public Prosecutor maintained that the investigating agency had collected sufficient preliminary material indicating a conspiracy among the accused. He submitted that call detail records revealed 256 telephone calls between the two applicants, besides several communications involving the third accused.
The prosecution further relied upon financial transactions between the accused to support the allegation that they were acting in coordination.
After examining the rival submissions and the material placed on record, the court observed that individual recoveries cannot automatically be combined to attract Section 29 of the NDPS Act. However, where sufficient evidence indicates a conspiracy or prior meeting of minds among the accused, the investigating agency may be justified in invoking the provision.
The court noted that the accused were allegedly travelling together, while call records and financial transactions provided prima facie support to the prosecution's allegations of conspiracy.
It observed that the investigation was still at a preliminary stage and that it would be premature to conclude that sufficient material did not exist to support the allegations under Section 29 of the NDPS Act.
The court further held that even if the recoveries were considered individually and the restrictions under Section 37 were not attracted, the seriousness of the alleged offences and the crucial stage of investigation remained significant factors against granting bail.
It expressed apprehension that releasing the accused at this stage could adversely affect the investigation or create a possibility of tampering with evidence.
The court also emphasised that the gravity of the alleged offences and their impact on society could not be overlooked while considering bail applications in cases involving substantial quantities of narcotic substances.
Holding that the material prima facie attracted the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and that the applicants had failed to satisfy the statutory conditions for bail, the court dismissed both applications as being devoid of merit. (JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
