Common Intention Is for Trial; Bail Turns on Applicant's Own Heroin: J&K and Ladakh High Court

Police at a naka at Tikri stopped a car going from Jammu towards Srinagar, driven by the applicant with two others inside (para 2). A polypack of a heroin-like substance weighing 106.86 g was allegedly recovered from his jeans pocket, and one of 104.89 g from the rear-seat passenger's (paras 2, 11). FIR No. 212/2024 of Police Station Rehmbal was registered under Sections 8/21/22 of the NDPS Act; Section 29 was added during investigation (paras 1, 3). The Special Judge, Udhampur refused bail on 28.10.2024 as the investigation was pending; the charge-sheet has since been filed (paras 4-5). He pleaded intermediate quantity and separate recoveries; the State alleged connivance (paras 6-9).

The Court recorded that the applicant was travelling with the co-accused and that 106.86 g and 104.89 g of heroin were recovered from the personal searches of the two men, each from his own jeans pocket (para 11). Though they were found together in the vehicle, the contraband was found in the applicant's possession individually, so the Supreme Court's ruling in Amarsingh Ramjibhai Barot v. State of Gujarat, 2005(7) SCC 550, applied at the bail stage; the Court reproduced its observation that persons found together but individually carrying substances do not attract Section 29 without evidence of abetment or conspiracy (para 12). On the prosecution's case of commercial quantity recovered from all the accused, the Court held that whether they shared a common intention had to be established during the trial; at this stage the applicant was carrying only an intermediate quantity (para 13). As his quantity was less than commercial, the embargo of Section 37 did not apply, and bail for intermediate and small quantities is considered on the principles governing Section 437 CrPC (para 14). He had been in custody since 18.09.2024, the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet was filed (para 14).