MOHAMMAD ASHRAF YATOO Vs. STATE OF JK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 08.10.2017, a police patrol party of Police Station Baramulla, found some persons moving around in suspicious circumstances. They were signaled to stop but they tried to give them a slip. However, these persons were apprehended by the police party and during the search of their person some contraband was recovered from their possession. They could not account for it. They disclosed their identities as (1) Reyaz Ahmad Khan S/o Raj Mohamamd R/o Kalgi Uri (2) Mohammad Ashraf Itoo S/o Ghulam Mohammad Itoo R/o Namblabal Popore (3) Abdul Majeed Bhat S/o Abdul Ahad Bhat R/o Tathamulla Boniyar (4) Abdul Nazir Masi S/o Abdul Kareem R/o Gowhallan Uri. An FIR bearing No. 18/2017 was registered against them for the commission of offences U/Ss 8/21 / 29 NDPS Act at Police Station Boniyar, with which the investigation ensued. During investigation the samples of the contraband seized from their possession were sent to J & K Forensic Science Laboratory, Srinagar, for examination and analysis. The report received from the FSL confirmed that

(2.) The applicant herein this application along with three others filed three applications for the grant of bail in their favour in the FIR aforesaid. All these applications were rejected by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Baramulla, by a common order dated 29.12017. Aggrieved by this order one of the applicants namely, Mohammad Ashraf Yatoo filed this application for the grant of bail in his favour inter-alia, on the grounds, that the charge-sheet has been laid against him before the competent court, wherein the Police authorities have concluded that he along with others are involved in the commission of offences U/s 8/21 / 29 NDPS Act. The applicant has further stated that he been falsely implicated in the case. The mandatory provision of the NDPS Act have been violated in the case with impunity and, therefore, the detention of the applicant is illegal and unjustified. It has also been averred that the rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, does not apply to the case on hand.The applicant has been in the custody for the last more than four months by now and his continued detention has hampered him from proving his innocence.A small quantity of Narcotics has been recovered from his possession. He will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will abide by the conditions whatsoever are imposed on him, in case he is admitted to bail. In the premises, the applicant has urged that he be admitted to bail for the commission of the aforesaid offences.

(3.) The respondents have resisted and controverted the application of the applicant chiefly on the grounds that Brown Sugar was recovered from the possession of the applicant and his associates. The applicant has committed a heinous offence. The menace of the drugs has eaten into the vitals of the society. It is a crime against the society and the societal concerns have to be guarded with zeal and zest. The motion so preferred by the applicant seeking admission to bail in relation to the above referred crime is devoid of any merit and as such the same deserves to be rejected.