The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has granted bail to an individual accused in a 2023 drug-death case, ruling that the mere act of selling or supplying a controlled substance does not automatically invoke the stringent provisions of Section 27-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. This section pertains to financing illicit traffic or harbouring individuals involved in such activities.
Information was available with The Chenab Times indicating that Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi, in an order dated August 11, 2026, stated that the evidence presented did not prima facie establish that the petitioner, Yasir Ali, had financed illicit drug trafficking or harboured co-accused individuals. The court also observed that the prosecution had listed 30 witnesses but had only examined nine over two and a half years since the trial began, making prolonged pre-trial detention a relevant factor in the bail decision.
Yasir Ali had petitioned the High Court seeking regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. The case stemmed from FIR No. 26 of 2023, registered at Police Station City Jammu, concerning offences under Sections 8, 21, 22, 27, and 27-A of the NDPS Act, alongside Sections 304, 328, 34, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. These charges were filed following the death of Umran Khan, who allegedly died after consuming a contraband substance adulterated with rodenticide.
According to the prosecution’s narrative, Khan’s death occurred after a co-accused, Waseem Akram, allegedly injected him with a substance procured from Ali. This substance was reportedly mixed with rat poison, which became the direct cause of Khan’s demise.
Represented by advocate Jameel Ahmad, Ali contended that he was entitled to bail on the grounds of parity, as Akram, who was accused of administering the substance to the deceased, had already been granted bail by the Special Judge, NDPS, Jammu, on October 24, 2025.
The defense further argued that the criteria for Section 27-A of the NDPS Act were not met due to the absence of any material demonstrating that Ali had financed illicit traffic or harboured individuals engaged in such activities. His counsel submitted that the prosecution’s claims of him being a peddler were largely based on a disclosure statement made during the investigation, supported by allegations of only two instances of sale.
The defense highlighted the lack of evidence such as bank transactions, recovered cash proceeds, call detail records, or other corroborating documentation that would indicate financial benefits, ongoing trade, or organized trafficking operations.
In opposition to the bail application, Deputy Advocate General Pawan Dev Singh argued that Ali’s position differed from Akram’s. The prosecution asserted that Ali was the source and supplier of the contraband and had admitted to being a drug peddler. They maintained that the substance supplied by Ali was ultimately mixed with rodenticide and administered to the deceased.
The state contended that the stringent requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act were applicable and that Ali could not claim parity with Akram due to the materially different roles attributed to them.
However, the High Court focused its examination on whether the available material adequately supported the invocation of Section 27-A.
Justice Kazmi observed, “Section 27-A of the NDPS Act is not attracted by proof of sale or supply simpliciter,” clarifying that such conduct would typically fall under Sections 21 and 22 of the Act. The court emphasized that to bring a case under Section 27-A, the prosecution must prove that the accused either financed illicit traffic or harboured a person engaged in such traffic.
The court elaborated that financing under Section 27-A entails providing funds, capital, or financial support for the continuation of illicit traffic, distinguishing it from isolated or occasional sales. Similarly, harbouring involves providing shelter or protection to an individual involved in illicit traffic, with knowledge of their activities.
“A person cannot be held to be harbouring another merely because he sold a substance to him,” the court stated.
The court noted that the evidence cited to attribute the role of financier to Ali consisted of his disclosure statement and references to two alleged sales, without accompanying evidence of recovered cash, a financial trail, or other corroborating proof of pecuniary gain or organized trafficking.
Furthermore, the court found no material indicating concealment, or the provision of shelter or protection to the co-accused.
The court also pointed out that a disclosure statement made to an investigating officer, being akin to a confession, is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and could not be considered sufficient material to establish the elements of Section 27-A at the bail stage.
“The embargo under Section 37 NDPS Act is attracted by the true nature of the accusation and the material in support thereof, and not by the label of the offence alone,” Justice Kazmi remarked.
The court also considered it significant that Akram, who was alleged to have directly administered the contaminated substance leading to the death, had already been granted bail. The court found that Ali’s role, based on the available material, did not prima facie appear to extend beyond that of an occasional supplier.
While acknowledging that “Parity is not a thumb rule,” the court added that when the material distinguishing Ali’s case from the already enlarged co-accused was “fragile and largely inadmissible,” Ali could not be subjected to continued incarceration on a more stringent basis.
The court also took note of the slow pace of the trial, with only nine out of 30 prosecution witnesses having been examined after two and a half years since the proceedings commenced. “Conclusion of trial, at this pace, is likely to take further considerable time,” the court observed.
Justice Kazmi affirmed that prolonged pre-trial incarceration, disproportionate to the stage of the trial, could serve as a valid ground for bail, even in cases involving the strictures of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. This observation was made with reference to Supreme Court rulings, including those in Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha and Union of India v. Md. Nawaz Khan.
The court also noted that only 2.5 grams of contraband were allegedly recovered from Ali’s residence, and this quantity did not qualify as commercial quantity.
While granting the bail application, the court clarified that its observations were preliminary and made solely for the purpose of deciding the bail plea, and would not prejudice the ongoing trial.
Yasir Ali has been directed to furnish a personal bond of Rs 100,000, along with two sureties of the same amount. He is also restricted from leaving the Jammu district without prior permission from the trial court and is instructed not to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence.
Additionally, he must appear before the trial court on each scheduled hearing date, unless exempted. He is also required to surrender his passport, if any, and refrain from engaging in similar activities while the trial is pending.
The court reserved its order on August 7 and pronounced it on August 11, 2026, through Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi in Bail Application No. 18 of 2026.
❤️ Support Independent Journalism
Your contribution keeps our reporting free, fearless, and accessible to everyone.
Or make a one-time donation
Secure via Razorpay • 12 monthly payments • Cancel anytime before next cycle
(We don't allow anyone to copy content. For Copyright or Use of Content related questions, visit here.)
The Chenab Times News Desk
