Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Mohd. Maqbool vs Narcotics Control Bureau on 18 October, 2025
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Reserved on: 06.10.2025
Pronounced on: 18.10.2025
Uploaded on18.10.2025
Whether the operative part or
full judgment is pronounced
Case No.:- Bail App No. 36/2025
CrlM No. 236/2025
Mohd. Maqbool
.....Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Sunil Sethi, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Parimoksh Seth, Advocate &
Mr. Vishal Mahajan, Advocate.
Vs
Narcotics Control Bureau ..... Respondent(s)
Zonal Unit, Jammu & anr
Through: Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI with
Mr. Eishaan Dadhichi, CGSC
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under
Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023
for grant of bail in a case arising out of a complaint (NCB Crime
No. 02 of 2024 dated 14.01.2024) filed by respondent No. 1
against the petitioner and co-accused for offences under Sections
8, 21, 22, 26, 27-A, 29 & 38 of the NDPS Act, which is stated to
be pending before the Court of learned Special Judge, NDPS
Cases, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred to as "Trial Court").
2. As per case of the complainant-respondent No. 1, on 14.01.2024
at about 0800 hrs, a secret information was received by Sh.
Koushal Kumar, Intelligence Officer, NCB, Jammu from a
reliable source that co-accused, namely, Rayees Ahmed Bhat is
coming from New Delhi in a video coach bus bearing registration
No. NL-02 B0027 with a consignment of Codeine based cough
syrup and then he is reaching inter-state bus stand, Narwal,
Jammu at about 1100 hrs to 1200 hrs. It was also informed
that the consignment of Codeine based cough syrup has been
kept in a greenish trolley bag. The information was reduced into
writing whereafter a team of NCB officials proceeded to inter-
state bus stand, Narwal.
3. At about 1120 hrs, the bus reached Bus stand, Narwal and the
passengers of the said bus were questioned. Co-accused Rayees
Ahmed Bhat was asked to open his greenish coloured trolley bag
and upon opening it, a black coloured bag, which was kept
inside the trolley bag, was found. Two plastic bottles containing
some liquid were recovered which the said accused confirmed to
be Codeine. Another bag, containing 50 bottles of Triprolidine
Hydrochloride Codeine Phosphate Cocrex cough syrup (100 ml
each) was also recovered. Besides this, 1000 tablets of
Tapentadol (100 mg) were also recovered. The recovered articles
were sealed and seized in different lots.
4. The statement of accused-Rayees Ahmed Bhat was recorded on
spot in which he admitted his guilt with regard to illicit
trafficking of 2.280 kg of Codeine liquid, 50 bottles of Codeine
based cough syrup and 1000 tablets of Tapentadol (100 mg). He
further disclosed that accused-Pradeep Singh Sodhi was also
with him from Srinagar to Jammu and Jammu to Delhi via
Ludhiana. He further stated that he went to attend hearing of a
case in Ludhiana court on 12.01.2024 and thereafter he went to
Delhi for receiving the seized drugs from one Mohd. Shabir, the
co-accused. Thereafter accused Rayees Ahmed Bhat was put
under arrest.
5. On 16.01.2024, samples of the recovered contraband drugs were
drawn in presence of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Sub Judge),
Jammu and these samples were sent to the laboratory for
chemical analysis on 18.01.2024. As per the test report, the
samples were found to contain Codeine Phosphate.
6. The team of NCB officials proceeded to conduct search of the
premises owned by co-accused Mohd. Shabir. Upon conducting
the search of his house, 117 bottles (100 ml) of cocrex codeine
based cough syrup were recovered from a brown coloured carton
box. From further search of the almirah, a box of Alprazolam IP
0.50 mg 30 strips (total 300 tablets) was also recovered. Another
box of Alprazolam 60 strips (total 600 tablets) was recovered
from the house. It is further alleged that Acetaminophen
Dicylomine Hydrochloride and Tramadol Hydrochloride capsules
7 strips (total 56 capsules) were also found. Further Lorazepam
tablets 7 strips (total 210 tablets), 570 tablets of Clobazam
Tablets and 19 bottles (100 ml each) of Cocrex cough syrup were
recovered from the house of accused Mohd. Shabir.
7. It has been alleged that during the search of house of
co-accused-Mohd. Shabir, petitioner Mohd. Maqbool knocked the
door of his house and entered there. He was carrying 150
bottles (100 ml each) of Cocrex Codeine based cough syrup for
delivering it to Mohd. Shabir and he could not produce any
bill/legal document in respect of these drugs. During the search
of premises of accused-Mohd. Shabir, cash amount of
Rs. 15,03,750/- was also recovered. The recovered drugs were
seized and sealed in different lots and the cash was also seized in
a separate lot.
8. The statement of the accused Mohd. Shabir under Section 67 of
NDPS Act was recorded in which he disclosed that the drugs
recovered from his possession were supplied to him by the
petitioner Mohd. Maqbool which he had taken from the owner of
M/s N.K. Pharmaceutical, namely, accused Niket Kansal. He
also disclosed that accused Pradeep Singh Sodhi had demanded
Rs. 30,000/- from him and he paid an amount of Rs. 20,000/- to
him for the purpose of protecting him from registration of NDPS
case against him.
9. Statement of the petitioner-Mohd. Maqbool under Section 67 of
the NDPS Act was also recorded in which he admitted his role in
illicit trafficking of seized drugs and he further disclosed that he
is an old worker of Niket Kansal and the seized drugs were
supplied by the said accused, which he had to deliver to accused
Mohd. Shabir.
10. After conducting the aforesaid proceedings, samples in respect of
the recovered drugs were drawn in presence of Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class (Sub Judge), Jammu on 25.01.2024. The
same were sent to laboratory for chemical analysis.
11. It has been further alleged in the complaint that call records of
cell phones of all the accused were obtained and analyzed and it
was found that they were in touch with each other. With regard
to the petitioner, it has been submitted that he had been in
touch with accused Rayees Ahmed Bhat on his mobile ten times
from 09.01.2024 to 13.01.2024.
12. On 01.06.2024, statement of accused-Pradeep Singh Sodhi
under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was recorded in which he
disclosed that he is companion of accused Rayees Ahmed Bhat
and that they had purchased the drugs from accused Mohd.
Shabir on 13.01.2024. It was also found that accused Niket
Kansal is the kingpin of supply of drugs and that investigation
against him in many cases is still going on.
13. Lastly, it has been submitted that commercial quantity of drugs
comprising 317 bottles of Codeine based cough syrup, 2.280 kg
of Codeine liquid, 1000 tablets of Tepentadol, 900 tablets of
Alprazolam, 56 capsules of Tamadol, 210 tables of Lorazepam,
570 tables of Clobazam, have been recovered in the present case,
as such offences under Sections 8, 8A, 21, 25, 26, 27 A, 29, 38
and 80 of the NDPS Act are established against the petitioner
and the co-accused.
14. It seems that the learned trial court vide its order dated
13.12.2024 has framed charges for offences under Sections 8,
8A, 21 (c), 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act against the co-accused
Rayees Ahmed Bhat, for offences under Sections 8, 8-A, 21 (c),
27-A and 29 of the NDPS Act against accused Mohd. Shabir and
for offences under Sections 8, 8-A, 21 (c), 22, 27-A and 29 of the
NDPS Act against petitioner Mohd. Maqbool. Accused Pradeep
Singh Sodhi, Niket Kansal and Sumesh Sareen have been
discharged. It appears that learned trial court vide its order
dated 17.01.2025 has dismissed the bail application of the
petitioner.
15. The petitioner has sought bail in the instant case on the grounds
that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that he is
guilty of the offences for which he has been charged. It has been
further contended that the petitioner is in jail for the last more
than one year and there is no immediate prospect of conclusion
of the trial, therefore, he deserves the concession of bail. It has
been contended that as per report of the chemical analyst, the
percentage of Codeine in the drugs recovered from the
possession of the petitioner is less than 2.5 percent, therefore, it
does not fall within the definition of the 'manufactured drugs' as
contained in Section 2 (xi) of NDPS Act. It is being contended
that the investigating agency has not sent samples of all the
bottles of cocrex cough syrup, which are alleged to have been
recovered from the petitioner, as such, it cannot be stated that
the petitioner is involved in a case relating to possession of
commercial quantity of manufactured drugs.
16. The respondents have contested the bail application by
contending that the petitioner has been found to be in
possession of commercial quantity of narcotic drugs, as such he
does not deserve any leniency. It has been further contended
that trial of the case is at crucial stage and if the petitioner is
released on bail, there is every possibility of the evidence being
tampered. It has been contended that statutory embargo
contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act is attracted to the
present case.
17. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record
of the case.
18. If we have a look at the record of the case, the petitioner has
been charged for offences under Sections 8, 8-A, 21 (c), 22, 27-A
and 29 of the NDPS Act. The order of charge is not under
challenge before this Court. So we have to proceed on the basis
that the petitioner is prima facie found to have been involved in
the aforesaid offences. As per material on record, the petitioner
is alleged to have been caught red handed while handing over
the consignment of 150 bottles of cocrex codeine based cough
syrup to co-accused Mohd. Shabir from whose possession 117
bottles of cocrex codeine based cough syrup, 300 tablets of
Alprazolam, 600 tablets of Alprazolam, 56 Tramadol
Hydrochloride capsules, 210 Lorazepam tablets, 570 tables of
Clobazam and 19 bottles of cocrex cough syrup with currency
notes amounting to Rs. 15,03,75/- were recovered.
19. There is material on record to show that the petitioner and co-
accused Rayees Ahmed Bhat were acting in concert and in
conspiracy with each other and for this reason, Section 29 of the
NDPS Act, has been invoked and even the charge for the said
offence has also been framed against the petitioner. Therefore,
whatever quantity of the contraband drugs has been recovered in
the present case from the petitioner or from co-accused Rayees
Ahmed Bhat, it has to be assumed that the same has been
recovered from all the accused persons. Once it is assumed so,
the question whether the quantity of Codeine Phosphate in the
drug recovered from the possession of the petitioner is less than
2.5 percent so as to bring it out of the purview of the definition of
'manufactured drugs' pales into insignificance. Not only Codeine
Phosphate but even other drugs have been recovered from the
co-accused. When the quantity of those drugs is taken together,
the same clearly falls within the parameters of commercial
quantity. Besides this, the petitioner has also been charged with
offence under Section 27-A of the NDPS Act, which relates to
offence of financing illicit trafficking and harbouring of offenders.
The bar contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act is, therefore,
attracted to the case of the petitioner.
20. In the aforesaid circumstances, going into the question as to
whether the percentage of Codeine Phosphate found in the drugs
seized from the petitioner, would take out the said drugs from
the purview of definition of 'manufactured drugs' would be an
academic exercise, which this court would not like to undertake
in the present case. At this stage, even after excluding the
recovery of the drugs effected from the possession of the
petitioner, he is deemed to be in possession of other contraband
drugs, which have been recovered from the possession of other
accused as Section 29 of the NDPS Act has been invoked against
him. Thus, petitioner is involved in a case relating to possession
of commercial quantity of contraband drugs besides financing
illicit trade of drugs. Section 37 of NDPS Act, which imposes
conditions for grant of bail in offences involving commercial
quantity of contraband drugs and in offences relating to
financing of illicit traffic of drugs is attracted to the present case.
Bail in such cases cannot be granted unless the Public
Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the
application and there are reasonable grounds for believing that
the applicant is not guilty of such offences and he is not likely to
commit any offence while on bail.
21. In the present case, as already stated, there is enough material
on record to show that the petitioner is involved in an offence
relating to possession of commercial quantity of contraband
drugs and besides this, he is also stated to be involved in offence
under Section 27-A of the NDPS Act. Thus, it cannot be stated
that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not
guilty of these offences. The petitioner has, therefore, failed to
carve out a case for grant of bail in his favour. Apart from this,
trial in the case has just begun and at this stage merely because
the petitioner has been incarcerated for the last more than one
year, bail cannot be granted in his favour.
22. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this petition.
The same is, accordingly, dismissed. However, the learned trial
court is directed to expedite the trial of the main case.
(SANJAY DHAR)
JUDGE
JAMMU
18.10.2025
Naresh/Secy.
Whether order is speaking: Yes
Whether order is reportable: Yes
Naresh Kumar
2025.10.18 18:19
