HC declines anticipatory bail in 445-kg poppy straw case, cites NDPS Bar & money trail

01/02/2026

JAMMU, Jan 31: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of Mohammad Ashraf Dar in a narcotics case involving the smuggling of 445 kilograms of Poppy Straw, holding that the recovery constitutes commercial quantity and squarely attracts the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
The order was passed by Justice Rajnesh Oswal in Bail Application No. 16/2025, arising out of FIR No. 13/2023 registered at Police Station Qazigund, Anantnag, by the Anti-Narcotics Task Force (ANTF), Jammu.
The petitioner was represented by Mr. Asif Wani, Advocate.
The Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir was represented by Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, Deputy Advocate General.
Aseem Sawhney Senior Advocate appeared for Inspector Amandeep Singh, then I/O of ANTF of Crime Branch and was assisted by Ms. Tania Bukhari, Advocate; Mr. Kasif Malik, Advocate; Ms. Khushboo, Advocate; Mr. Harsh, Advocate; Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Sarfraz, Advocate; and Mr. Piyush, Advocate.
As per the prosecution, on November 11, 2023, ANTF Jammu intercepted a mini oil tanker and recovered 445 kg of Poppy Straw, a commercial quantity under the NDPS Act. The vehicle, driven by Jagjit Singh of Punjab, was found to be mechanically altered with concealed cavities, allegedly used for transporting narcotics from Kashmir to Punjab.
During investigation, accused Nadeem Ahmad Sofi disclosed the involvement of other persons, including the present petitioner Mohammad Ashraf Dar and Mohammad Yaqoob Bhat, pointing to an alleged inter-State narcotics syndicate.
The investigation further revealed a money trail, including a transfer of ?1 lakh from co-accused Nadeem Ahmad Sofi to the petitioner, along with frequent telephonic contact among the accused during the relevant period.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that no contraband was recovered from Mohammad Ashraf Dar and that his implication was based solely on the said bank transaction, which, according to the defence, represented sale consideration for a vehicle under an agreement executed prior to registration of the FIR. The defence alleged false implication.
After hearing the parties and perusing the case diary, the Court observed that the petitioner does not dispute receipt of ?1 lakh from the co-accused. The explanation regarding the transaction, the Court held, cannot be conclusively examined at the stage of anticipatory bail.
The Court further noted that Call Detail Records and financial transactions prima facie connect the petitioner with the alleged offence and that the seized contraband falls within the category of commercial quantity.
Justice Rajnesh Oswal held that in cases involving commercial quantity, the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act must be satisfied before grant of bail. The Court found no reasonable ground to believe that the petitioner is not guilty of the offences alleged.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application, while clarifying that the observations made shall not prejudice the merits of the trial.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty