Dismissed

Aftab Ahmad Khan and Anr. v. Union Territory through Police Station Crime Branch Kashmir (Home Department)

J&K HC19 Sept 2026Crl R/1/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging the framing of charges under Sections 8/21 and 29 of the NDPS Act. The court found that call detail records showing extensive communication between the petitioners and a co-accused from whose possession heroin was recovered constituted sufficient prima facie material to warrant framing of charges. The trial proceedings were already underway, and the court declined to interfere.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; trial court directed to proceed with trial in accordance with law; interim directions vacated.

Aftab Ahmad Khan and Anr. Vs Union Territory through Police… — Narcotics (NDPS) | J&K HC (2026)

¶1

Serial No.22 REGULAR CAUSE LIST

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR

¶3

Crl R 1/2023 CrlM(2/2023)

¶4

AFTAB AHMAD KHAN AND ANR.

…Petitioner(s)

Through: None.

Vs.

UNION TERRITORY THROUGH POLICE STATION CRIME BRANCH KASHMIR

¶9

...Respondent(s)

¶10

Through: Mr. H. Aman Ali, Dy.AG.

¶11

CORAM:

¶12

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE ORDER

¶13

19.09.2026

¶14

The petitioners have repeatedly sought adjournments and, despite opportunities, have not come forward to argue the matter. It appears from the impugned order that the petitioners have been charge-sheeted for offences under Sections 8/21 and 29 of the NDPS Act.

¶15

The record of the trial Court has also been perused. It transpires there from that, in terms of the charge-sheet, the petitioners, namely, Aftab Ahmad Khan and Gulzar Ahmad Khan, have been implicated with the aid of Section 29 of the NDPS Act. The primary recovery is stated to have been effected from co-accused Abdul Qayoom Mir, who was allegedly found in possession of heroin-like contraband. During investigation, on the basis of the call detail records and other material collected, it was found that the said co-accused was in direct contact with the petitioners and

¶16

1 | P a g e

¶17

that the three accused were allegedly in constant communication with each other in connection with the unauthorized sale and possession of narcotic substances.

¶18

The petitioners claim to have been falsely implicated. However, on a perusal of the material available before the trial Court, particularly the call detail records and other material collected during investigation, it appears that there was prima facie material before the trial Court warranting framing of charges against the petitioners with the aid of Section 29 of the NDPS Act.

¶19

It is also relevant to note that the charge-sheet was filed before the Court of learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Srinagar, on 13.06.2022, and the trial has thereafter proceeded. Thus, the proceedings before the trial Court are already underway.

¶20

The call detail analysis, as placed on record, indicates that coaccused Abdul Qayoom Mir, from mobile number 7051337047, had made 311 calls and sent 71 SMSs to petitioner Aftab Ahmad Khan and had made 428 calls and sent 9 SMSs to petitioner Gulzar Ahmad Khan during the period from 01.10.2021 to 04.04.2022. Significantly, the period during which such communication is stated to have taken place overlaps with the period during which the alleged recovery was effected.

¶21

In the aforesaid factual background, the material placed before the trial Court constituted sufficient prima facie basis for framing of charges against the petitioners for the offence under Section 8/21 of the NDPS Act read with Section 29 thereof. The material on record, therefore, does not warrant interference with the impugned

¶22

order.

¶23

2 | P a g e

¶24

The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. The trial Court shall

¶25

proceed with the trial in accordance with law.

¶26

Interim direction(s), if any, shall stand vacated.

¶27

(Sanjay Parihar) Judge

¶28

SRINAGAR:

¶29

19.09.2026 Shaista-PS

¶30

3 | P a g e

Aftab Ahmad Khan and Anr. v. Union Territory through Police Station Crime Branch Kashmir (Home Department)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aftab Ahmad Khan and Anr. v. Union Territory through Police Station Crime Branch Kashmir (Home Department)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases