STATE TIMES NEWS
JAMMU: Additional Sessions Judge Doda Amarjeet Singh Langeh on Monday rejected the bail applications of wife Shafia Tabassum and her Junaid Qayoom husband involved in NDPS case.
Prosecution has filed formal objections to this application and opposed the same on grounds amongst other that petitioners are involved in F.I.R No. 51/2024 for offences under sections 8/21/22/29 of NDPS Act registered with Police Station Doda; that during search by DySP Headquarter Doda, 34 grams of heroin was recovered from the possession of petitioners.
Additional Sessions Judge Doda Amarjeet Singh Langeh after hearing both the sides observed that the quantity of contraband allegedly seized from possession of petitioners comes in “intermediate quantity”.
Investigation also reveals that petitioner No. 2 is also involved in two more FIRs for the same offences under the NDPS Act. One FIR is registered with Police Station Bahufort, Jammu while as another had been registered with Police Station Doda.
The cases arising out of these two FIRs are said to be sub-judice. The alleged recovery of heroin (Chitta) in question along with cash only gives a prima facie indication that the two petitioners do indulge in peddling and sale of contraband. This is the more disconcerting feature of case in hand. Unmindful of fear of law, the act of peddling contraband like heroin and selling the same to youth, not only scales-up gravity of offences alleged but its pernicious consequences are more than visible to anyone willing to gauge and see. Investigation further shows that petitioner No. 2 being an addict, also remained in rehabilitation center. Be that as it may, alleged addicts, cannot be allowed to become peddlers to secure cash flow and fulfil prospects for quick money at the cost of horrible suffering of youth at large. Above apart, the investigation is at initial stage and wider dimensions of linkages of petitioners facilitating them in procurement of contraband in question – are still under investigation. In the case law cited by Ld. Counsel for petitioners, the petitioners therein remained in custody for months together. Here however is a case where investigation has yet to be completed. It is required to be noted that even though rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act are not attracted in the case in hand, yet limitations provided for grant of bail in heinous and non-bailable offences indeed are squarely attracted in the case in hand. Thus, having regard to character of evidence collected during the investigation till date and considering the gravity and seriousness of offences alleged and the societal impact of the crime alleged in question, I am of the considered opinion that no case for grant of bail — on facts – is made out by petitioners at this stage. This application is therefore has no merit and same is therefore dismissed.
