Srinagar: The J&K and Ladakh High Court has clarified that “reasonable grounds” under Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not mean proof as required under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. The Court warned that such an interpretation would effectively eliminate the power to grant bail.
In a significant reaffirmation of personal liberty, the Court ruled out that the stringent bail bar under the NDPS Act does not require courts to demand proof at the bail stage.
Justice Mohammad Yousuf Wani observed that the expression “reasonable grounds”occupies a middle ground—more than suspicion, but less than proof.
The Court said, “Reasonable grounds,” must prima facie persuade a person of ordinary prudence about the guilt or innocence of the accused.
The Court cautioned that equating the standard with full proof would defeat bail jurisprudence and undermine personal liberty. Judicial discretion, it held, cannot be rendered illusory by an overly rigid reading of Section 37 of the Narcotics Act.
These observations came while deciding a bail plea of a Doda-based businessman accused of financing drug trafficking. The case rested mainly on statements of co-accused and the petitioner’s Section 67 statement, with no recovery or fresh incriminating discovery.
On facts, the Court found no direct or cogent material linking the accused to the seized contraband. The alleged minor financial transactions lacked any demonstrated nexus with narcotics trade. The absence of prior criminal antecedents also weighed in his favour.
While acknowledging the gravity of NDPS offences, the Court held that seriousness alone cannot justify prolonged incarceration. Relying on Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, it reiterated that bail is not punitive and pre-trial detention must be an exception.
Concluding that the statutory threshold of “reasonable grounds” was not met, the High Court granted bail, subject to conditions imposed by the trial court.
Discover more from Bench&Law
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.