Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Karan Singh Alias Goli vs Ut Of J&K And Anr on 18 October, 2025
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Case No. Bail App No. 57/2025
CrlM No. 355/2025
c/w
Crl R No. 20/2025
Reserved on: 10.10.2025
Pronounced on: 18.10.2025
Uploaded on:18.10.2025
Whether the operative part or
full judgment is pronounced
Karan Singh Alias Goli
.....Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Utsav A Magotra, Advocate.
Vs
UT of J&K and anr..
..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Vishal Bharti, Dy. A.G with
Mr. Vivek Mattoo, Advocate
Mr. Aditya Pandita, Advocate
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
(JUDGMENT)
1. By this common order, two petitions, one for grant of
bail and another challenging order dated 20.11.2024 passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Samba (hereinafter referred to
as "trial Court"), whereby charges for offences under Sections
8/21/22 and 29 NDPS Act have been framed against the
petitioner, are proposed to be disposed of.
2. As per the case of prosecution, on 15.09.2023, the police
of police station, Vijaypur, Samba had laid a Naka near AIIMS,
Vijaypur. At about 17.40 hours, a JKSRTC Bus bearing
registration No. JK02Y/0829 reached the Naka while it was
proceeding from Samba side towards Jammu. The bus in
question was stopped by the police party and a couple of police
officials on duty entered the bus for checking purposes. Upon
spotting the police, two passengers sitting in the bus got
frightened and they tried to escape from the bus. These two
persons were carrying a red and black coloured bag with navy
blue lines (Pithu Bag). The police got suspicious about these two
persons and they were apprehended.
3. Upon questioning, one of these persons disclosed his
name as Sourav Deep Singh alias Sherry whereas, other person
identified himself as Karan Singh alias Goli, (the petitioner
herein). The bag being carried by the two accused was subjected
to checking and four number of small packets containing heroin
like substance packed in transparent polythene weighing about
100 gms each were found in the bag. The two persons were made
to deboard from the bus and upon questioning, they disclosed
that they are indulging in illegal business of heroin along with
one more person namely Baba R/o Chatti Amritsar who had given
the said consignment to these accused persons with a direction to
handover the consignment to Manshu R/o Balole, Bari
Brahmana. On the basis of docket received from the Naka party,
FIR No. 129 for offences under Sections 8/21/22/27-A/29 NDPS
Act was registered at police station, Vijaypur. The petitioner and
co-accused Sourav Deep Singh @ Sherry were arrested and
investigation of the case was set into motion.
4. During investigation of the case, the recovered packets
of heroin were sealed and samples were drawn from these four
packets which were sent to FSL Jammu for chemical analysis.
The co-accused Balwinder Singh @ Baba was arrested after
obtaining production warrant and arrest was effected from
District jail Gurdaspur where he was in custody in connection
with FIR No. 204 of 2023 for offences under Section 21-(C), 27-A
of NDPS Act registered with police station, Dinanagar. Name of
one more person namely Akashdeep Singh also surfaced during
the investigation of the case and he was arrested from District
Jail Gurdaspur after obtaining production warrants. The
involvement of one more person namely Bunty Langeh R/o Gujjar
Pura, Amritsar also surfaced. His arrest is still to be awaited. The
Call Data Records relating to sim cards used by all the accused
were obtained and from the analysis of the same, it was found
that all the accused were in close contact with each other for a
long period of time as also on the day of occurrence. Thus,
offences under Sections 8/21/22/29 NDPS Act have been found
proved against the petitioner and five more co-accused.
Accordingly, the charge-sheet was laid before the trial Court.
5. The learned trial Court vide impugned order dated
20.11.2024 declined to discharge the accused and framed
charges against the petitioner and other arrested accused for
offences under Sections 8/21/22/29 NDPS Act. It also appears
that bail application of the petitioner and co-accused has been
rejected by the learned trial Court in terms of order dated
20.11.2024.
6. The petitioner has challenged the order of framing
charge and has sought bail on identical grounds by contending
that no recovery of the contraband substance has been effected
from his possession and merely on the basis of Call Data Records,
neither charges could have been framed against the petitioner nor
his bail application could have been rejected. It has been
submitted that as per the recovery memo prepared by the
investigating agency, the contraband substance is shown to have
been recovered from the possession of co-accused Sourav Deep
Singh @ Sherry and not from the petitioner. It has also been
contended that the petitioner and co-accused Sourav Deep Singh
@ Sherry as per the prosecution case were travelling in a public
service vehicle and not in a private vehicle, therefore, it cannot be
inferred that the petitioner was in league with co-accused Sourav
Deep Singh @ Sherry.
7. The respondents have filed their reply to the bail
application in which they have submitted that there is enough
material on record to show the involvement of the petitioner in
the alleged crime. It has been further submitted that the
petitioner is involved in heinous crime as such, he does not
deserve to be enlarged on bail particularly, keeping in view the
statutory bar contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act which is
attracted to the present case.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
record of the case.
9. As already noted, the contention of the petitioner is that
no recovery of contraband substance has been effected from him
and as per the recovery memo, the contraband substance has
been recovered from the possession of accused Sourav Deep
Singh @ Sherry. There is no denying the fact that recovery memo
pertaining to Sourav Deep Singh @ Sherry records the recovery of
entire contraband substance weighing 405.76 grams in total (04
packets). The said quantity definitely falls within the parameters
of commercial quantity. At first blush, the contention of the
petitioner that no recovery was affected from him and as such, he
cannot be stated to be involved in the alleged crime, appears to be
attractive but when the prosecution statements of witnesses
recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC are analysed closely, it is
found that all of them have stated in one voice that the bag from
which contraband substance was recovered was being carried by
both the petitioner as well as co-accused Sourav Deep Singh @
Sherry. These witnesses have also stated that both the aforesaid
accused upon spotting police tried to escape and they got
frightened which prompted the police party to subject the bag
that was being carried by both the accused with them, to
10. In the face of aforesaid evidence on record, merely
because in the recovery memo pertaining to petitioner, no
recovery of contraband substance is recorded and the same is
recorded in the recovery memo pertaining to co-accused Sourav
Deep Singh @ Sherry only, it cannot be stated that the petitioner
is not involved in the crime. It is true that the petitioner and co-
accused were travelling in a public service vehicle and not in a
private vehicle but evidence on record shows that they were
travelling together and both of them were in conscious possession
of the bag from which the contraband substance was recovered.
Besides this, the Call Data Record collected by the investigating
agency shows that the petitioner and other co-accused were in
constant touch in past as well as on the day of occurrence. In
these circumstances, it cannot be stated that the petitioner was a
stranger to co-accused Sourav Deep Singh @ Sherry merely
because they were travelling in a public service vehicle.
11. From the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that there is
material on record of the charge sheet which raises a strong
suspicion about the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged
crime. Thus, there are reasonable grounds for proceeding against
the petitioner and as such, he cannot be discharged. The material
on record prima-facie shows that the petitioner is involved in
commission of offences under Sections 8/21/22 and 29 NDPS Act
and commercial quantity of contraband substance has been
recovered in the present case. Therefore, the provisions contained
in Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted to the facts of the
present case. Since the material on record points towards the
involvement of the petitioner in the alleged crime as such, it
cannot be stated that there are reasonable grounds for believing
that he is not involved in the offence relating to possession of
commercial quantity of the contraband substance. Thus,
conditions for grant of bail as stipulated in Section 37 of the
NDPS Act are not satisfied in this case.
12. For the foregoing reasons, both the petitions are found
to be without any merit. The same are, accordingly, dismissed.
(SANJAY DHAR)
JUDGE
JAMMU
18.10.2025
Tarun/PS
Whether order is speaking: Yes
Whether order is reportable: Yes
