BA 867.23
MHCC020148882023
1
IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR N.D.P.S. CASES
AT GREATER MUMBAI
NDPS BAIL APPLICATION NO. 867/2023
IN
C. R. NO. 52 OF 2023
Sharafat Yanmohammad Khan
Age : 32 years,
R/o : R. No.2, Sawadhan Sewa
Society Chawl, Laljipada,
Kandiwali (West),
Mumbai – 400 067.
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra
(ANC, Bandra Unit)
… Applicant/accused no.1
… Respondent
Appearance :Mr. Vikas Shinde, Adv. for applicant.
Mr. Shankar Erande, APP for respondent/State.
CORAM : THE SPECIAL JUDGE
B. Y. PHAD (C.R.44)
DATE :
03.02.2024
ORDER
The applicant Sharafat Yanmohammad Khan, has filed the
present application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 for the grant of regular bail in relation to Crime No.
52/2023 registered under Sections 8(c) read with 22(c) and 29 of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 with the ANC,
BA 867.23
2
Bandra Unit, Mumbai.
2.

In short, according to the applicant he has not committed
any crime and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Only 10 gms.
MD has been recovered from the applicant, which falls below
commercial quantity. The applicant is permanent resident of Mumbai
and sole earning member of his family. The mandatory provisions
u/sec. 42, 50, 52-A, 55 & 57 of the NDPS Act have not been complied
by the prosecution. Therefore, he seeks release on bail.
3.

The application has been objected by the prosecution by
filing reply at Exh.2. It is contended that on 31.05.2023, the applicant
and co-accused were apprehended since in their personal search
applicant was found in possession of 10 gms. MD and co-accused no.2
– Ganesh Parmar was found in possession of 245 gms. MD in his house.
As such total quantity of contraband seized in this crime is 255 gms.
of MD. The applicant and co-accused obtained the said contraband
from Aslam Dalela of Mumbra. Further it has been transpired in the
investigation that the applicant and co-accused no.2 & 3 were in
contact with each other. CDR details of the same have been obtained.
The C.A. report of the contraband is tested positive. It has been
transpired that the applicant and co-accused no.2 and absconding
accused were doing business of selling of contraband in association of
each other. Therefore, if the present applicant/accused is released on
bail, he may help the absconding accused from getting arrested.
Therefore, the bail application may be rejected.
4.

Ld. counsel for the applicant submits that the previous bail
application has been rejected but now charge-sheet has been filed. The
applicant is allegedly found in possession of 10 gms. MD, which is far
less that the commercial quantity. The applicant cannot be connected
with the contraband allegedly found with co-accused merely because
BA 867.23
3
there is alleged evidence of CDR details of contact between applicant
and co-accused. Further detention of the applicant is not necessary
since now charge-sheet has been filed. By relying upon following
rulings, Ld. Counsel for the applicant prayed for releasing the applicant
on bail.
1. Smt. Rashida Iqbal Khan vs. State of Maharashtra in Cri. Application
No. 2177/2006 decided on 21.06.2006.
2. Sangeeta Y. Gaikwad vs. The State of Maharashtra in Cri. Application
No. 2597/2006 decided on 03.08.2006.
3. Pranit S. Khaire vs. The State of Maharashtra in B.A. No. 1946/2022
decided on 04.11.2023.
4. Iran Khan s/o Kasam Khan Pathan vs. The State of Maharashtra in
Cri Revn. Appln. No.11/2007 in NDPS Spl. Case No.5/2006 decided on
28.03.2007.
5.

On the other hand, learned APP, Mr. Shankar Erande
submits that the offence is serious. The applicant and co-accused are
engaged in business of Mephedrone. The total quantity seized from
both the accused is above commercial quantity. There is evidence of
CDR details regarding contacts between applicant and co-accused.
Therefore, the bail application may be rejected.
6.

Considering the submissions of both sides and the fact that
except CDR details, there is no other evidence against the applicant to
be in association with the accused no.2 for alleged business of the
contraband, in my opinion, in absence of evidence of details of talks
and chat the CDR evidence is weak piece of evidence to connect the
applicant with accused no.2, who was found in possession of
commercial quantity of contraband. The applicant was found in
possession of 10 gms. MD, which is far less than commercial quantity.
Therefore, in my opinion the rigors u/sec. 37 of the NDPS Act is not
applicable to the case of the applicant. The applicant has clean
BA 867.23
4
antecedents and well rooted in society. Therefore, I think it proper to
release the applicant on bail by putting stringent conditions. Hence the
order.
ORDER
1. Bail Application No. 867/2023 is hereby allowed.
2. The applicant/accused Sharafat Yanmohammad Khan, arrested in
Crime No. 52/2023, shall be released on bail upon executing a personal
bond of Rs. Sixty Thousand, along with one or two solvent surety
bond/bonds of the said amount, to ensure his appearance at all
required times during the legal proceedings, subject to the following
conditions:
a.

The applicant/accused is directed to report to the ANC,
Bandra unit every Sunday between 10.00 a.m. to 11.00 a.m., till
framing of charge without fail.
b.
jurisdiction
The applicant/accused is prohibited from leaving the
of
Mumbai
without
explicit
permission
from
the
investigating officer or the Court.
c.

The applicant/accused is strictly prohibited from making
any form of contact with co-accused, witnesses, or any individuals
directly associated with the case. The applicant/accused shall not
tamper with any evidence or documents related to the case.
d.

The applicant/accused must maintain a stable residence at
his current address in Kandivali, Mumbai, and is required to inform the
court and the investigating officer of any change in his residential
address. The accused shall furnish his active mobile number to the
Investigating Officer and shall also immediately report any change in
his mobile number.
e. The applicant/accused must not interfere with the ongoing
investigation and shall comply fully with law enforcement in their
BA 867.23
5
investigation.
f.

The applicant/accused shall surrender his passport, if any,
before the Investigating Officer within a week and, if he does not
possess any passport, he shall file an affidavit to that effect before the
Investigating Officer.
g. The applicant/accused is prohibited from engaging in activities
that might be related to the offense registered.
h. The applicant/accused must comply with all reasonable
directions made by law enforcement agencies or investigating officers
related to the case.
i. As per para No.12(1) of the Criminal Manual, the
applicant/accused before release on bail shall furnish the list of three
blood relatives with their detail residential addresses and also the
addresses of their place of work, if any, and shall also produce
documentary proofs showing the correctness of details produced by
him.
2.

Failure to adhere to any of these conditions will result in the
immediate revocation of bail and may lead to further legal
consequences.

Date : 03.02.2024
Dictated on
Transcribed on
Checked on
Signed on
( B. Y. PHAD )
Special Judge (N.D.P.S.),
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay (C.R. NO.44)
: 03.02.2024
: 05.02.2024
: 06.02.2024
: 06.02.2024
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGEMENT/ORDER”
BA 867.23
6
UPLOAD DATE
07.02.2024
TIME
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
03.00 p.m.

Mrs. S. W. Tuscano
Name of the Judge
HHJ Shri B. Y. Phad
(CR No.44)
Date of Pronouncement of
Judgment/Order.
Judgment/order signed by P.O on
03.02.2024
Judgment/order uploaded on
07.02.2024
06.02.2024