M.K. Hanjura ORDER
M.K. Hanjura, J.
1. By order dated 24th July, 2017 of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Budgam, an application for the grant of bail in favour of the applicant came to be rejected. The order of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Budgam, is a sequel to the fact that the accused is involved in the commission of offences under Section 15/18 NDPS Act in case bearing FIR No. 140 of the year 2015, registered against him at Police Station, Chadoora.
2. Ghulam Ahmad Sofi, the accused whose bail application was rejected earlier in point of time by the order cited above, has filed yet another application before this Court on 22.08.2017, for admitting him to bail in the aforesaid offences, inter-alia, on the grounds that he has been falsely implicated in the commission of the offences imputed to him. The respondent, it is alleged has recovered poppy straw in powder weighing 58 Kg and 500 gm including the weight of the bags from the residential house of the applicant in his absence in contravention of the law relating to seizures. The seizure memo prepared by the respondent would reveal that no person living in his vicinity has been cited as a witness in the case. In the site plan prepared by the respondent, it has been shown that two houses are situated in contiguity to the house of the applicant and no one living in them has been cited as a witness to the alleged seizure of the poppy straw.
3. It is also stated that the quantity of poppy straw alleged to have been recovered from the residential house of the applicant falls with the scales of an intermediate quantity to which the rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, does not apply. It is further stated that the applicant has been languishing in jail for the last more than fifteen months. The witnesses to be examined in the case are police officials. The applicant does not wield any control on them and they cannot be won over by him in case he is admitted to bail.
4. The respondents have resisted and controverted the application of the applicant chiefly on the grounds that poppy straw was recovered from the residential house of the applicant. The applicant has committed a heinous offence. The menace of the narcotics 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, as the quantity of poppy straw recovered from the residential house of the applicant falls within the scales of commercial quantity.
5. Heard and considered.
6. The learned trial Judge after giving an account of the facts of the case has by a well-reasoned order held that 58 Kgs and 500 gm of poppy straw were seized in the case from the residential house of the accused and this quantity falls within the scales of the commercial quantity. The argument of the learned counsel for the applicant that the quantity of poppy straw seized from the residential house of the accused does not fall within the purview of commercial quantity is, therefore, a spurious argument and entails rejection on the face of it. Taking into consideration the quantity of poppy straw recovered from the residential house of the accused, the rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, applies to the instant case in all the fours. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the contraband seized from the residential house of the accused was not a part of the same assignment is a specious argument. It cannot be considered at this stage, as it would be too early in the day to return a finding on that count. This aspect can be looked into during the trial of the case including the one on the angle of conspiracy for which a specific charge has been framed by the trial Court as gets reflected from the order of the learned Principal Sess........