Prolonged Incarceration Alone Cannot Dilute Section 37 NDPS Bar on Bail in Commercial Quantity Cases – Commentary on Shahnawaz Ahmad Dar v. Union Territory of J&K (Police Station Bijbehara)

Prolonged Incarceration Alone Cannot Dilute Section 37 NDPS Bar on Bail in Commercial Quantity Cases

1. Introduction

The decision of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar in Shahnawaz Ahmad Dar v. Union Territory through Police Station Bijbehara (Home Department), Bail App No. 165/2023, pronounced on 21 November 2025, adds another significant link in the chain of stringent bail jurisprudence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

The judgment is a detailed reaffirmation of the restrictive regime of bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act in cases involving commercial quantity, and of the limited role constitutional courts can play at the bail stage in scrutinizing alleged procedural lapses and evidentiary contradictions. The Court emphatically holds that:

  • Prolonged incarceration, even for more than four years,
  • Substantial progress in trial (10 of 13 prosecution witnesses examined), and
  • Alleged non-compliance with NDPS procedural safeguards, SOPs and guidelines,

do not, by themselves, permit dilution of the strict statutory bar contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, unless the “twin conditions” under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) are affirmatively satisfied.

The judgment therefore crystallizes a clear principle: in commercial quantity NDPS cases, bail cannot be granted solely on the basis of prolonged custody, partial completion of trial, or alleged procedural infirmities, unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty and will not reoffend while on bail.

2. Background and Facts

2.1 Parties and Procedural Posture

  • Petitioner/Accused: Shahnawaz Ahmad Dar, 27 years, resident of Tulkhan Bijbehara, Anantnag, Kashmir, represented through his 84-year-old grandfather as guardian.
  • Respondent: Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir, through SHO Police Station Bijbehara.
  • Forum: High Court of J&K and Ladakh at Srinagar, before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal.
  • Nature of proceedings: Application for regular bail in an NDPS case arising out of FIR No. 292 of 2021.

2.2 Allegations and Prosecution Case

According to the prosecution (para 1–2):

  • During a naka (check-post) operation, the petitioner was allegedly found in possession of a commercial quantity of contraband kept in bottles in his vehicle.
  • The bottles were seized, samples were drawn, and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL).
  • The FSL report confirmed that the bottles contained “Chlorine Phosphate” (as recorded by the Court), a narcotic/psychotropic substance.
  • After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed and the trial commenced.

At the time of hearing of the bail application:

  • Out of 13 prosecution witnesses, 10 had been examined, including:
    • the complainant,
    • the Executive Magistrate, and
    • the FSL expert (PW-11).
  • The petition, however, still stated that only one prosecution witness had been examined (para 3), and the petitioner had not amended it to reflect the updated trial status.

2.3 Defence Contentions

The petitioner sought bail primarily on two axes: procedural illegality and prolonged incarceration/Article 21.

  1. Alleged procedural non-compliance under NDPS Act and ancillary instruments (para 6–12):
    • Non-compliance with Sections 42, 50, 52, 52A and 57 of the NDPS Act.
    • Violation of NDPS Rules, 1985.
    • Disregard of the 2017 SOP issued by J&K Home Department for NDPS cases.
    • Violation of guidelines notified vide GSR 899(E) dated 23.12.2022 (relating to seizure, sampling, storage, disposal etc.).
    Key factual discrepancies stressed:
    • Chance recovery vs prior information: While the prosecution termed it a “chance recovery”, PW-6 (Executive Magistrate) stated he had been informed beforehand and asked to accompany the police for naka duty (para 7). Defence argued this made Section 42 (prior information to be reduced to writing and forwarded to superior officers) mandatory, and alleged non-compliance.
    • FIR number on seizure memo: PW-1 admitted the correctness of the recovery memo (Ex. PA-1/A), which already contained the FIR number even though the alleged recovery pre-dated registration of the FIR (para 8). Defence argued this suggested post facto fabrication of the memo.
    • Unexplained delay in sending samples to FSL: PW-11 deposed that although seizure was on 07.12.2021 and samples were produced before Magistrate on 08.12.2021, the FSL received them only on 20.12.2021—after 12 days—with no explanation (para 9), undermining the chain of custody.
    • Contradictory version of PW-8: PW-8 allegedly stated that the seized items were brought from the shop of co-accused Ishaq Shah and Waseem Shah (para 10), a version claimed to contradict the main narrative of recovery from the petitioner’s vehicle.
    • No independent witnesses: Defence highlighted absence of independent witnesses, contrary to the spirit of Section 100 CrPC, arguing this weakens the prosecution case (para 11).
    On this basis, counsel argued:
    • Recovery was doubtful; consequently, the presumption of conscious possession does not arise (para 12).
    • If the recovery itself is suspect, the rigour of Section 37 NDPS Act should be treated as diluted.
  2. Prolonged incarceration and Article 21 (para 4, 13–14):
    • The petitioner has been in custody for more than four years.
    • He has undergone more than one-third of the minimum sentence prescribed for the alleged offence.
    • With 10 out of 13 witnesses examined, the likelihood of tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses is minimal (para 14).
    • Continued detention, despite these factors and alleged defects in prosecution case, was argued to be a violation of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution (para 13).

2.4 Prosecution/State’s Stand

The State’s opposition to bail (para 15–20) rests on the following propositions:

  • Commercial quantity is involved; hence Section 37 NDPS Act squarely applies (para 15–16).
  • Recovery of contraband from petitioner is not denied by him; he only attacks the procedure/manner (para 15, 23).
  • Alleged contradictions and lapses in investigation are issues of appreciation of evidence—a matter for trial, not for bail (para 18).
  • Section 37’s twin conditions require the Court to be satisfied that:
    • There are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty; and
    • He is not likely to commit any offence while on bail (para 16).
    It was contended that no such satisfaction can be recorded at this stage (para 17).
  • Prolonged custody alone is not a ground for bail in commercial quantity NDPS cases, as repeatedly held by the Supreme Court (para 19).
  • The trial is progressing expeditiously – 10 of 13 witnesses have been examined (para 19); therefore, no basis exists for bail on the ground of delay.
  • NDPS offences pose grave societal risks; release may affect trial and facilitate further offending (para 20).

3. Summary of the Judgment

The High Court dismissed the bail application, holding that:

  1. The case indisputably involves commercial quantity, activating the stringent bail bar under Section 37 NDPS Act (para 21).
  2. The expression “reasonable grounds” in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) means credible, plausible grounds for believing the accused is not guilty; this high threshold, as explained by the Supreme Court, is not satisfied in the present case (para 22–23).
  3. The petitioner has not produced any material to show reasonable grounds of innocence; he does not even dispute recovery of contraband from his possession (para 23).
  4. Prolonged custody (over four years) and partial completion of trial (10 of 13 witnesses examined) cannot, in themselves, justify bail in a commercial quantity NDPS case unless the twin conditions of Section 37 are fulfilled (para 24–25, 28–29).
  5. The right under Article 21 is subject to the “procedure established by law”, and Section 37 NDPS Act constitutes such a valid statutory procedure; hence, detention in compliance with Section 37 cannot ordinarily be termed violative of Article 21 (para 24–25).
  6. Alleged procedural lapses, contradictions in witness testimonies, or delay-related arguments cannot be adjudicated as a mini-trial at the bail stage; evaluation of such matters is reserved for the trial court (para 30–33).
  7. The societal harm inflicted by drug trafficking and the legislative intent of the NDPS Act further strengthen the case for strict adherence to Section 37 (para 34–36).
  8. Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed, while directing the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously and “at the earliest, without unnecessary delay” (para 39–40).

4. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

4.1 Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 891

Referred at para 22.

The High Court relies heavily on this decision to explain the meaning of “reasonable grounds” in Section 37(1)(b)(ii). Quoting the Supreme Court:

“the expression ‘reasonable grounds’ … would mean credible, plausible and grounds for the Court to believe that the accused person is not guilty of the alleged offence… Dove-tailed with the aforesaid satisfaction is an additional consideration that the accused person is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail.”

The Supreme Court also clarified that:

“The length of the period of his custody or the fact that the chargesheet has been filed and the trial has commenced are by themselves not considerations that can be treated as persuasive grounds for granting relief … under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.”

The High Court uses this precedent to:

  • Reject the petitioner’s reliance on length of custody as an independent bail ground.
  • Affirm that unless there is material showing credible, plausible grounds of innocence, Section 37 cannot be relaxed.
  • Characterize the burden under Section 37 as “heavy and much stricter than the normal rules of bail” (para 23).

4.2 Union of India v. Ajay Kumar Singh @ Pappu, Crl. No. 2351 of 2023 (SC)

Cited at para 26.

This Supreme Court decision reiterated that in cases involving commercial quantity under the NDPS Act, the twin conditions under Section 37 are mandatory:

“it is implicit that no person accused of an offence involving trade in commercial quantity of narcotics is liable to be released on bail unless the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such an offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.”

The High Court invokes this ruling to:

  • Emphasize that Section 37 is not a mere guideline but a mandatory statutory command.
  • Reinforce that bail in commercial quantity cases is the exception, and continued detention is the norm unless positive satisfaction is recorded.

4.3 State by the Inspector of Police v. B. Ramu, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4073

Referred at para 27.

The Supreme Court held:

“For entertaining a prayer for bail in a case involving recovery of commercial quantity of narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, the Court would have mandatorily recorded satisfaction in terms of the rider contained [in] Section 37 of the NDPS Act.”

The High Court uses this to:

  • Underline that recording of satisfaction under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) is not a mere formality; it is a jurisdictional threshold for courts in bail matters under NDPS.
  • Justify refusal of bail where no such satisfaction could reasonably be recorded on the present material.

4.4 Union of India v. Vigin K. Varghese, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2440

Discussed at para 29.

This recent decision is central to the High Court’s approach toward prolonged incarceration. The Supreme Court, while setting aside a grant of bail, held that:

  • The High Court had wrongly relied on:
    • “absence of knowledge” of contraband,
    • “absence of antecedents”,
    • “length of custody”, and
    • “perceived delay in conclusion of the trial”
    to hold that reasonable grounds of innocence existed.
  • The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for:
    • Not adequately examining prosecution material suggesting the accused’s operative control over contraband (custody, logistics, prior consignment, etc.).
    • Using incarceration and delay as the main justification for a finding of reasonable grounds of innocence (paras 15–17 of the SC extract).

The J&K High Court extrapolates from this precedent that:

  • Prolonged incarceration and delay cannot be treated as sufficient to override Section 37 in commercial quantity cases.
  • A finding that “reasonable grounds exist to believe accused is not guilty” must be based on a careful, though limited, appraisal of incriminating material, not merely on sympathetic factors (para 29).

4.5 Ms. Y v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 384

Relied upon at para 32.

In this case, the Supreme Court held:

“At the stage of granting bail the Court is not required to enter into a detailed analysis of the evidence in the case. Such an exercise may be undertaken at the stage of trial.”

The High Court cites this to justify:

  • Refusal to engage in detailed dissection of:
    • alleged contradictions in testimonies (e.g., PW-6, PW-8),
    • discrepancies on seizure memos and FIR numbering,
    • delay in sample dispatch to FSL, and
    • compliance with Sections 42, 50, 52, 52A, 57 and SOPs.
  • Reiteration that bail hearings are not intended to become mini-trials (para 30–33).

4.6 Mohd Zahid v. State through NCB, LL 2021 SC 722

Invoked at para 36.

The Supreme Court in this case stressed the gravity and social impact of NDPS crimes:

“No leniency should be shown to an accused who is found to be guilty for the offence under the NDPS Act… Those persons who are dealing in narcotic drugs are instruments in causing death or in inflicting death blow to a number of innocent young victims who are vulnerable… Such accused cause deleterious effects and deadly impact on the society.”

The High Court imports this reasoning at the bail stage to:

  • Justify the stringent approach toward bail in commercial quantity cases.
  • Highlight the wider societal dimension of drug trafficking: damage to youth, public health, family structures and rise in secondary crime (para 34–36).

5. Court’s Legal Reasoning

5.1 Section 37 NDPS Act as the Central Axis

The judgment is anchored around Section 37 of the NDPS Act (para 21–22), which the Court reproduces in full. Key features relied upon:

  • The non obstante clause — overriding the Code of Criminal Procedure.
  • The specific bar on release on bail where:
    • The offence involves commercial quantity, and
    • The accused does not satisfy the twin conditions of Section 37(1)(b)(ii).
  • The fact that these limitations are in addition to the usual CrPC limitations (Section 37(2)).

The Court first establishes that the case involves commercial quantity (para 21), which the petitioner does not dispute. This automatically triggers the stringent Section 37 regime.

5.2 Understanding “Reasonable Grounds” under Section 37

Applying Mohit Aggarwal, the Court clarifies that:

  • “Reasonable grounds” are not equivalent to prima facie suspicion or general doubt.
  • They must be:
    • credible,
    • plausible, and
    • sufficient to persuade the Court that the accused would not have committed such an offence (para 22).
  • This satisfaction is “dove-tailed” with the further requirement that the accused is unlikely to reoffend while on bail (para 22).

On the facts, the Court notes that:

  • The petitioner has “nowhere disputed the alleged recovery of contraband from his possession” (para 23).
  • No substantial material has been produced to suggest non-involvement.
  • Given the statutory presumptions and stringency, the burden on the accused is “heavy and much stricter than the normal rules of bail” (para 23).

Therefore, the Court concludes that the petitioner has failed to establish reasonable grounds to believe he is not guilty.

5.3 Article 21, Prolonged Incarceration and Section 37

A key facet of the judgment is the treatment of Article 21 vis-à-vis Section 37:

  • The Court acknowledges the argument that the petitioner has been in custody for over four years and has undergone more than one-third of the minimum sentence (para 24).
  • However, it reasons that:
    • The right to personal liberty under Article 21 is subject to “procedure established by law”.
    • Section 37 itself forms part of that valid and stringent procedure (para 24).
  • Hence, unless the twin conditions under Section 37 are met, continued detention cannot be dubbed per se violative of Article 21 (para 24–25).
  • The Court cites the Supreme Court decisions in Mohit Aggarwal and Vigin K. Varghese to reinforce that:
“mere prolonged detention, without satisfaction of these pre-conditions, cannot be invoked to dilute or bypass the express legislative mandate” (para 28).

The Court thus treats prolonged incarceration as a relevant but not determinative factor—it can guide the court’s anxiety for expeditious trial (leading to para 40’s direction), but not by itself justify bail in derogation of Section 37.

5.4 Refusal to Enter a Mini-Trial: Treatment of Procedural Lapses and Contradictions

The petitioner’s detailed attack on:

  • inconsistencies in PW depositions,
  • timing and authenticity of seizure documents,
  • chain-of-custody delays,
  • possible non-compliance with Sections 42, 50, 52, 52A, 57, NDPS Rules, SOP and GSR 899(E),

is collectively addressed by the Court in paras 30–33:

  • Such issues concern evaluation of evidence and the credibility of witnesses.
  • Under settled law, including Ms. Y v. State of Rajasthan, the High Court at the bail stage is not to conduct a detailed analysis of evidence (para 32).
  • Consequently:
    • The Court declines to treat alleged discrepancies, procedural lapses or contradictions as grounds for bail.
    • These are explicitly characterized as matters to be tested at trial (para 31–33).

In effect, the Court draws a clear line: Section 37 demands some assessment of whether “reasonable grounds” of innocence exist, but not to the extent of a detailed forensic review of the entire prosecution case. Here, given the admitted recovery and lack of compelling exculpatory material, the Court finds no such reasonable grounds.

5.5 Societal Harm and Legislative Intent

The Court devotes a substantial portion (para 34–36) to the societal context of NDPS offences:

  • NDPS offences affect not just individuals but “society at large”.
  • Drug traffickers are described as:
    • inflicting a “deadly blow” on youth,
    • posing a “hazard” to society,
    • destroying individual lives, and
    • undermining public health, family structures and community stability (para 34–35).
  • Relying on Mohd Zahid, the Court notes that “no leniency should be shown” to those found guilty under NDPS Act (para 36).
  • Bail without strict adherence to Section 37 would create a “real and tangible risk” of the accused returning to drug networks and re-offending (para 34).

This form of social harm reasoning is used to justify:

  • Adopting a conservative, security-oriented stance on bail in NDPS commercial quantity cases.
  • Emphasizing that the legislative design of NDPS Act is to protect the community from “grave dangers” and “devastating consequences” (para 35).

5.6 Final Balancing and Outcome

Balancing:

  • The strict statutory command of Section 37,
  • The absence of credible exculpatory material,
  • The advanced stage of trial (10 of 13 witnesses examined), and
  • The wider societal impact of drug crime,

the Court:

  • Rejects the bail plea, holding the petitioner has “failed to satisfy the mandatory requirements of Section 37” (para 37–39).
  • Clarifies that alleged procedural lapses cannot form “reasonable grounds” under Section 37 at this stage (para 38).
  • Directs the trial court to proceed “expeditiously” and conclude the trial at the earliest (para 40).

6. Complex Concepts Simplified

6.1 Section 37 NDPS Act and the “Twin Conditions”

Section 37 imposes special restrictions on bail in NDPS cases, especially where commercial quantity is involved. For such cases, bail can be granted only if:

  1. The Public Prosecutor is given an opportunity to oppose the bail application; and
  2. If opposed, the Court is satisfied that:
    • (a) There are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty of the offence; and
    • (b) The accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

These two conditions are often called the “twin conditions”. They are stricter than normal CrPC bail norms and shift a substantial burden onto the accused in serious NDPS cases.

6.2 “Commercial Quantity”

Under NDPS law, quantities of narcotic/psychotropic substances are classified as:

  • Small quantity – lowest bracket; often attracts lesser punishment.
  • Intermediate quantity – between small and commercial.
  • Commercial quantity – highest bracket; triggers:
    • higher minimum and maximum sentences, and
    • the special bar on bail under Section 37(1)(b).

Here, the Court proceeds on the admitted fact that the recovered contraband was of commercial quantity, thus making Section 37’s rigours fully applicable (para 21).

6.3 “Reasonable Grounds” vs. Mere Doubt

“Reasonable grounds” is a term of art in Section 37 (para 22). It does not mean:

  • mere conjecture,
  • vague suspicion, or
  • a speculative plea of innocence.

Instead, it requires:

  • Credible material – supported by some evidence or circumstances.
  • Plausible narrative – reasonably consistent with innocence.
  • Such content that, taken at face value, would persuade a court that the accused probably did not commit the alleged offence.

6.4 “Mini-Trial” at Bail Stage

A “mini-trial” refers to a situation where a bail court:

  • Microscopically examines witnesses’ testimonies,
  • Resolves contradictions,
  • Weighs reliability of documents, and
  • Attempts to draw near-final conclusions on guilt or innocence.

This is impermissible because:

  • Such tasks are the exclusive domain of the trial court after full evidence is led.
  • At bail stage, the court only performs a broad, tentative evaluation to see if statutory thresholds are met, without pre-judging the merits (para 31–33).

6.5 Article 21 and “Procedure Established by Law”

Article 21 guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to “procedure established by law”. In this context:

  • Liberty is not absolute; it can be curtailed if there is a fair, just and reasonable law.
  • Section 37 NDPS Act is treated as part of such “procedure”—a stringent statute enacted by Parliament to address a serious social evil.
  • Therefore, detention consistent with Section 37, especially where an accused fails to satisfy its conditions, is treated as constitutionally permissible (para 24–25).

7. Impact and Significance

7.1 Reinforcement of a Strict Bail Regime in NDPS Commercial Quantity Cases

This judgment firmly aligns the High Court of J&K and Ladakh with the Supreme Court’s latest jurisprudence in Mohit Aggarwal, Ajay Kumar Singh, B. Ramu, and Vigin K. Varghese:

  • Bail in commercial quantity NDPS cases will be exceptional.
  • Factors such as:
    • filing of charge-sheet,
    • commencement or advanced stage of trial,
    • prolonged incarceration, or
    • absence of prior criminal antecedents
    will not, by themselves, suffice.
  • The accused must bring tangible, credible exculpatory material to cross the “reasonable grounds” threshold.

7.2 Limited Space for Procedural Lapse Arguments at Bail Stage

The judgment sends a clear signal regarding defence strategy:

  • Allegations of:
    • non-compliance with Sections 42, 50, 52, 52A, 57,
    • violations of SOPs or GSR 899(E),
    • inconsistencies in seizure documentation, or
    • delays in sample handling,
    will rarely justify bail in isolation.
  • Such issues, unless they manifestly demolish the prosecution case on a bare reading, will be treated as trial issues rather than bail determinants.

This may:

  • Encourage defence counsel to reserve detailed technical challenges for trial (motions, cross-examination, final arguments), rather than expecting them to secure bail.
  • Strengthen the prosecution’s comfort in relying on Section 37’s presumption category even where investigation is imperfect, so long as basic recovery and link evidence stand uncontroverted at the bail stage.

7.3 Article 21, Undertrial Incarceration and Future Litigation

The Court’s approach—that Article 21 cannot override Section 37 absent satisfaction of twin conditions—places strong emphasis on statutory command. At the same time, by directing expeditious trial (para 40), the Court implicitly recognizes that:

  • Prolonged undertrial incarceration in stringent statutes like NDPS raises serious constitutional concerns.
  • The primary mechanism for addressing these concerns is speedy trial, not easy bail.

In the broader national context, this sits alongside the Supreme Court’s separate jurisprudence on:

  • the right to a speedy trial as part of Article 21, and
  • directions to avoid mechanical pre-trial detention.

However, in the specific field of NDPS commercial quantity cases, this High Court decision reaffirms that Section 37’s constraints remain dominant, and remedy for delay lies primarily in a direction to expedite trials.

7.4 Implications for the J&K and Ladakh Region

Practically, for NDPS litigation within J&K and Ladakh:

  • Trial courts are now on stronger footing to:
    • deny bail where commercial quantity is involved, absent clear exculpatory grounds; and
    • prioritize speedy disposal of NDPS trials, especially where undertrials have spent several years in custody.
  • Accused persons and defence lawyers must prepare for:
    • a high evidentiary threshold at the bail stage, and
    • a long undertrial period unless the prosecution case is patently untenable.
  • The judgment may also shape investigative practice, by highlighting the importance (even if not decisive at bail stage) of:
    • proper documentation of seizure,
    • strict adherence to sampling and storage SOPs,
    • minimizing delays in sending samples to FSL, and
    • keeping prior information records under Section 42.

8. Conclusion

The decision in Shahnawaz Ahmad Dar v. Union Territory through Police Station Bijbehara is a strong restatement of the law that:

  • Section 37 NDPS Act is the controlling statute in bail matters involving commercial quantity.
  • Courts must:
    • insist on “reasonable grounds” of innocence, and
    • be satisfied that the accused will not reoffend while on bail,
    before granting relief.
  • Prolonged incarceration, advanced stage of trial, or alleged investigative irregularities—individually or jointly—do not entitle an accused to bail unless they culminate in credible grounds suggesting non-involvement.
  • Bail hearings under NDPS are not the occasion for a mini-trial; detailed evaluation of contradictions, procedural lapses and documentary infirmities is reserved for final adjudication at trial.
  • The broader public interest in curbing narcotics offences, especially their devastating effect on youth and society, justifies a cautious and conservative approach to bail in such matters.

At the same time, by directing the trial court to expedite the proceedings, the High Court acknowledges the constitutional imperative to minimize undue undertrial incarceration. Thus, the judgment stands at the intersection of individual liberty, statutory stringency, and societal protection, and will likely serve as a key reference point for future NDPS bail jurisprudence in the region and beyond.

Case Details

Year: 2025
Court: Jammu and Kashmir High Court

Judge(s)

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL

Advocates

Comments