LAWS(J&K)-2021-12-132

UMAR GUL BHAT Vs. UT OF J&K

Decided On December 28, 2021
Umar Gul Bhat Appellant
V/S
Ut Of JAndK Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Sec. 439 of J&K Cr. P. C seeking bail in his favour in a case arising out of FIR No.264/2020 for offences under Sec. 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, (for short 'the NDPS Act') registered with Police Station, Saddar, Srinagar. After investigation of the FIR, charge sheet stands already laid before the Court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar. Pursuant to framing of charges against the petitioner, trial of the case is in progress.

(2.) As pr the case of the prosecution, on 5/11/2020, while the officials of Police Station, Saddar, Srinagar, were on patrolling duty near Natipora Chowk, Srinagar, they spotted a person moving in suspicious circumstances. The said person tried to escape from the spot but he was nabbed by the police personnel. The person was identified as accused/petitioner herein and upon his search, one bag was seized from his possession which contained thirty strips (720 capsules) of Spasmoproximio Plus. Upon questioning, the accused/petitioner could not justify the possession of the aforesaid drug and, accordingly, the recovered capsules were seized and the FIR came to be registered against the accused/petitioner.

(3.) During investigation of the case the petitioner was taken into custody. The sample of the seized capsules was sent to FSL, Srinagar, for seeking expert opinion. After receipt of the opinion from the FSL, the capsules were found to contain Tramadol, which is a psychotropic substance notified in terms of Notification No.S.O.1761(E) dtd. 26/4/2018 issued by the Central Government. Thus, after investigation of the case, offences under Sec. 8/21 of NDPS Act were found established against the petitioner and the charge sheet was laid before the trial court. On 7/6/2021, the petitioner was charged for the offences under Sec. 8/21 of NDPS Act, whereafter trial of the case started. It appears that by now statements of as many as four prosecution witnesses have been recorded by the trial court.