HC denies bail to alleged drug trafficking kingpin, cites banking records and CDRs

17/08/2026

JAMMU, Aug 16: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed the bail application of Tanzeer Ahmad Najar, accused in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act), holding that prima facie material in the form of banking transactions, call detail records (CDRs) and other investig-ative evidence indicated his alleged involvement in a wider narcotics trafficking conspiracy.
Justice Shahzad Azeem dismissed Bail Application No. 33/2026 on August 12, 2026, observing that the petitioner did not deserve the concession of bail at this stage in view of the nature of allegations, his conduct, alleged criminal antecedents and the larger interests of society.
Najar, represented by advocate Arshad Andrabi, had sought bail in connection with offences under Sections 8, 21, 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act and Section 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The Union Territory of J&K was represented by Government Advocate Sumeer Bhatia.
The petitioner contended that he had been in custody for about one-and-a-half years, had minor children to support and that there was no one at home to look after his family. It was also argued that the earlier bail application before the Additional Sessions Judge, Udhampur, exercising special powers under the NDPS Act, had been decided in the absence of his lawyer.
The principal submission before the High Court was that, apart from the disclosure statement of a co-accused recorded before police officers, there was no material connecting Najar with the alleged offences. His counsel further submitted that no contraband had been recovered from his possession and that the alleged use of his wife's bank account for narcotics proceeds could not, by itself, justify his continued incarceration.
The prosecution, however, opposed the plea, alleging that Najar was the kingpin of a larger conspiracy involving the supply and trafficking of narcotics for monetary gains. The prosecution maintained that the case was not based solely on the disclosure statement of the co-accused and that subsequent investigation had produced independent material indicating his complicity.
According to the prosecution case, police intercepted a Maruti car bearing registration number JK13B-1343 during checking on October 21, 2024, after receiving specific information regarding transportation of narcotics. A search allegedly resulted in the recovery of 695 grams of heroin concealed beneath the seat of the vehicle.
The investigation in FIR No. 163/2024 of Police Station Chenani subsequently led to the alleged identification of co-accused Mohd. Ishaq Shah alias Gulabo as the supplier. The prosecution relied on CDRs and other material to allege that Ishaq Shah had supplied the narcotic to the principal accused, Mohammad Ashraf. During the custodial investigation of Ishaq Shah, the name of Najar allegedly surfaced as the person who supplied the narcotics to him.
The prosecution further alleged that around 700 grams of heroin had been purchased from Najar for Rs. 1.80 lakh. Of this amount, Rs. 1.20 lakh was allegedly transferred into the bank account of Najar's wife, Iqra Bano, while Rs. 60,000 was allegedly transferred into another account on Najar's instructions.
The High Court noted that police had examined the bank account maintained in the name of Iqra Bano and found substantial cash deposits and online transactions during the relevant period. According to the prosecution, more than Rs. 11 lakh had been deposited into the account during 2024. CCTV footage from cash deposit machines was also obtained, while the statement of Iqra Bano allegedly indicated that the account was operated by her husband.
Justice Azeem also took note of the alleged criminal antecedents of the petitioner. The record showed his involvement in FIR No. 94/2021 of Police Station Karnah under Sections 8 and 21 of the NDPS Act concerning the alleged recovery of four kilograms of heroin. He was also accused in FIR No. 03/2025 of Police Station Parimpora under Sections 8, 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act, involving an alleged recovery of 9.345 kilograms of narcotics. The Court also noted that he had been booked under the Public Safety Act from November 18, 2022 to December 2, 2023.
The Court held that, apart from the disclosure statement of the co-accused, there was prima facie material in the form of banking transactions, CDRs and other evidence collected during investigation which tended to establish the petitioner's alleged complicity.
It further noted that the petitioner had been sent for trial for allegedly trafficking in commercial quantity of heroin pursuant to a "well-knit conspiracy" and that the Trial Court had already framed formal charges under Sections 8, 21, 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act.
Referring to the Supreme Court's judgment in Narcotics Bureau v. Mohit Agarwal, reported in (2022) 18 SCC 374, Justice Azeem observed that the length of custody, filing of the charge sheet or non-commencement of trial, by themselves, could not be treated as persuasive grounds for grant of bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
The High Court also held that the petitioner's conduct was relevant while considering the bail plea. It observed that the record indicated his involvement in previous NDPS cases and that the alleged concealment of such material from the Trial Court and the High Court was a factor that could not be ignored.
"The conduct of the Petitioner, therefore, indicates that there is real likelihood of repetition of similar offences if the concession of bail is granted at this stage," the Court observed.
The Court further relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., observing that while considering bail, the Court must take into account, among other factors, the likelihood of repetition of the offence as well as the character, behaviour, position and standing of the accused.
Justice Azeem rejected the contention that the case rested only on the disclosure statement of the co-accused. He observed that the statement merely provided the initial information which enabled investigators to probe the alleged larger conspiracy, after which independent material, including banking transactions and CDRs, was collected.
On the contention that the Trial Court had rejected the earlier bail plea in the absence of the petitioner's lawyer, the High Court found from the record that the petitioner was represented by advocate Rahul Khajuria before the Trial Court. His presence was recorded in the order dated May 15, 2026, when formal charges were framed against the accused.
The Court clarified that a disclosure or confessional statement of a co-accused by itself is inadmissible against an accused and cannot alone justify continued incarceration. However, it found that in the present case the prosecution had sought to corroborate the alleged involvement of Najar through banking transactions, conversations allegedly exchanged between the accused and the co-accused, and CDRs.
The Court stressed that these materials were yet to be formally proved during trial and that, at the interlocutory stage, it would neither be proper nor desirable to pronounce upon their ultimate admissibility or evidentiary value, as doing so could prejudice either side.
"Having regard to the stage of the trial, the conduct of the Petitioner and the larger interests of society, the Petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail at this stage," the Court held.
Accordingly, the bail application was dismissed. Justice Azeem made it clear that the observations and findings recorded in the order were confined to disposal of the bail petition and would not be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the trial.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty