Jammu Kashmir HC Blasts Trial Court For ‘Mechanical’ Delay In Drug Case
J&K High Court criticizes trial court for mechanically deferring NDPS case proceedings, orders prompt reconsideration, emphasizing lawful trial conduct without unwarranted delays.
By ETV Bharat Jammu & Kashmir Team
Published : April 13, 2026 at 3:52 PM IST
Srinagar: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has criticised a trial court for “mechanically” deferring proceedings in an NDPS case that had already reached the stage of final arguments. The HC observed that such an approach cannot be adopted without a reasoned judicial order.
In a 10-page judgement, Justice Rajnesh Oswal at Jammu rejected the bail plea of Afroz Ahmed Sheikh in a commercial quantity charas recovery case. Meanwhile, Justice Oswal made it clear that the real issue was not merely custody but whether the trial court had lawfully postponed the main trial after a supplementary complaint was filed against a co-accused.
“...the learned trial court, without formally adjudicating whether a deferment of proceedings was legally warranted, deferred the case against the petitioner in a mechanical manner,” the court observed.
The case arose from the 2020 seizure of 5.4 kilograms of charas from the petitioner while he was allegedly travelling from Anantnag (Kashmir) to Surat (Gujarat) via Jammu. Since the quantity falls within the commercial category under the NDPS Act, the stringent bail bar under Section 37 applied.
The accused had sought bail primarily on the ground of prolonged incarceration, arguing that he had spent nearly five years in custody and that the prosecution had taken almost the entire period to examine just six witnesses.
The trial had effectively concluded against him, with prosecution evidence closed and his statement already recorded. The case was listed for final arguments when the prosecution informed the trial court about a supplementary complaint against co-accused Ghulam Mohiuddin Shah. Final arguments in the main case were then put on hold.
The High Court found this postponement troubling. “This Court is of the considered view that the decision to defer proceedings was taken in a mechanical manner, without due application of mind.”
Justice Oswal emphasised that even when an additional accused enters the picture, the court must first decide whether the new accused should face a joint or separate trial. “If a separate trial is possible, there is no reason to halt the main matter.”
“...there exists no legal impediment preventing the trial court from proceeding with the main case and adjudicating the same in accordance with law,” the court remarked.
Despite these significant observations, the High Court did not grant bail at this stage.
The court reasoned that since it had already found fault with the deferment and directed the trial court to reconsider that issue, immediate bail was not warranted yet. Instead, the court passed timelines.
“The trial court has been directed to re-examine within 15 days whether proceedings against the petitioner should continue independently. It must also decide charge or discharge in the supplementary complaint against the co-accused within 30 days.”
The court also protected the petitioner's rights going forward, stating that “if the trial court still chooses to defer the main proceedings, he would remain free to move a fresh bail plea.”
The High Court also reminded subordinate courts that where bail is heavily restricted and punishment is severe, speed in trial is not optional.
“In cases under the NDPS Act, it is incumbent upon both the prosecution and the trial court to ensure that proceedings are concluded with the utmost expediency,” Justice Oswal said.
Also Read
