NDPS Spl RA 1181/2018
1
BA 901/2018
IN THE SPECIAL COURT FOR NARCOTIC DRUGS AND
PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985, AT GR. BOMBAY
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 901 OF 2018
IN
NDPS REMAND APPLICATION NO. 896 OF 2018
Firoza Sattar Khan.
Age – 60 yrs., Occ.: Housewife,
R/A Near Godown No. 10, Zopada
Surat Street, Dana Bunder, Masjid
Bunder, Chinchbunder, Mumbai.
V/s.
State of Maharashtra
(ANC, Azad Maidan Unit,
C.R. No. 61/18 dated 28/11/2018.)
… Applicant/
Accused
… Respondent
Appearance :
Ld. Advocate Mr. V. P. Shinde for the applicant/accused.
Ld. APP Mr. Panjwani for the State.
CORAM : H.H. THE SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS)
SHRI U. M. MUDHOLKAR
(C.R.NO.43)
DATE : 2nd JANUARY, 2019.
ORAL ORDER
This is an application for granting of a bail. The
applicant/accused Firoza Sattar Khan was arrested in C.R. No. 61/2018,
registered at ANC, Azad Maidan, Mumbai for the alleged violation of
Sec.8(c) r/w Sec. 22 and Sec. 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985.
2.
The prosecution case in nutshell reveals that the officers of
respondent were on patrolling duty and also equipped with the raiding
material including the brass seal. It is alleged that when they reached
NDPS Spl RA 1181/2018
2
BA 901/2018
the spot, present applicant/accused Firoza Sattar Khan along with her
two associates by name Jayalaxmi Bayanivel Orondodaur and Madina
Shaikh were found loitering in suspicious circumstances. On taking the
search of the baggage carried by them 75 corex cough syrup bottles,
total containing 15.2 gm codeine phosphate were found in the
possession of the present applicant Firoza. Similarly, 41 phencyrex
cough syrup bottles, total containing 8.2 gm codeine phosphate were
found in the possession of the coaccused Madina and 28 phencyrex
cough syrup bottles, total containing 5.6 gm codeine phosphate were
found in the possession of the coaccused Jayalaxmi. Thereafter, the
applicant/accused along with her associates were placed under arrest
for violation of provision of NDPS Act as above. After cessation of ANC
custody, presently the applicant is in judicial custody.
3.
The bail is sought on the grounds that applicant/accused is
falsely implicated in the crime. The quantity of Codeine Phosphate, in
cough syrup, if calculated properly then it does not cross a limit of
commercial quantity. In other words, the quantity of Codeine Phosphate
alleged to have been seized from the possession of the applicant/
accused is below the commercial quantity. Hence, Sec.37 of the NDPS
Act, 1985, does not apply to the case. The applicant/accused is having
deep roots in the society. She is ready to abide by the conditions
imposed by this Court, while releasing her on the bail. Investigation is
almost completed. For all the aforesaid reasons the applicant is entitled
to be released on bail.
On these grounds it is prayed that applicant/
accused be enlarged on bail.
4.
The respondent/State contested the petition by filing reply
dated 18/12/2018. It is mainly contended that the corex bottles were
NDPS Spl RA 1181/2018
3
BA 901/2018
found in the possession of the applicant and that the same have been
seized from her possession by strictly following the provisions under the
NDPS Act. It is further contended that as per the notification dated
18/11/2009 the entire mixture of the Narcotic Drug or psychotropic
substance needs to be considered, which amounts to commercial
quantity in the present case. It is further contended that the applicant
was possessing the said Corex without any valid document. On these
grounds it is prayed for the rejection of the application.
5.
Heard Ld. Advocate Mr. Shinde for applicant & the Ld. APP
Mr. Panjwani for the State at length.
6.
It is submitted by the Ld. Defence Counsel that the quantity
of Codeine Phosphate allegedly found in the possession of present
applicant needs to be considered in the light of observations in the
judgment in the case of Shahabuddin and another V/s. State of
Assam reported in 2012 (3) GAU LT 440. According to the same the
alleged quantity of the Codeine Phosphate would be below commercial
quantity. As such the bar of Sec. 37 of the NDPS Act would not get
attracted. As regards the calculation of the drug Codeine Phosphate
found in the Corex bottles he also relied upon judgment in the case of
Ankush Chauhan V/s, State of H.P. decided on 25/04/2017 in Cr.M.P.
(M) No. 432/2017, wherein also the exact quantity of Codeine
Phosphate in the entire mixture of syrup called Corex was considered
and bail was granted to the applicant in that case. According to him
applicant is having deep root in society and there are no chances of her
absconding, if released on bail. As such he requested to allow the bail
application.
NDPS Spl RA 1181/2018
7.
4
BA 901/2018
As against this, it is submitted by the Ld. APP Shri.
Panjwani for the State that as per the notification to the entire quantity
of the mixture of Codeine Phosphate needs to be calculated, which
amounts to commercial quantity and as such there is bar of Sec. 37 of
NDPS Act, for release of the applicant on bail. He further submitted
that in the event of release of applicant/accused on bail, there is every
likelihood of her engaging in similar nature of activity of selling
contraband and there is apprehension of her absconding from the
course of justice. Hence, prayed for rejection of the application.
8.
I have carefully considered the submissions of both the
sides and record. So far as quantity of Codeine Phosphate in the corex
bottles allegedly found in the possession of the present applicant needs
to be calculated, in the present case as per the calculations which are
reflected in para no. 34 of the judgment in the case of Shahabuddin of
Hon’ble Gauhati High Court. While making that calculation the Hon’ble
High Court has relied upon the calculations which were carried out in
the case of Micheal Raj V/s. Intelligence officer of NCB, 2008 5 SCC
161 and Sayyad Aalam V/s. State of Assam reported in 2011 Cr.L.J.
3140. The same methodology appears to have been applied by the
Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court while deciding the bail
application of the applicant Ankush Chauhan, cited supra.
Very
recently taking into consideration all the earlier pronouncements
including that of the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Rajveer Singh
@ Raju V/s. State of Punjab
in CRMM350802018 decided on
12/08/2008, the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court observed as
under:
“In view of the above discussion, it is held that in case of a
mixture/solution containing neutral or nonpsychotropic
NDPS Spl RA 1181/2018
5
BA 901/2018
substance as well as the narcotic/ psychotropic substance, it is
only the quantity of such narcotic/ psychotropic substance
present in such mixture/solution; which is to be taken into
counting for the purpose of determining the ‘commercial
quantity’ of such narcotic/ psychotropic substance. The neutral
solution or nonpsychotropic substance is not to be counted
towards the commercial quantity of said narcotic psychotropic
substance present in mixture/solution.”
9.
No counter judgment has been cited by the prosecution/
Learned APP Mr. Panjwani to take a different or contrary view than the
one which is reflected in the above judgments.
Under these
circumstances, at this stage, there is no alternative before this court
than to accept the argument submitted by
Ld. Adv. Shinde for the
applicant. Taking into consideration the reply of ANC and calculations
reflected in the judgments cited supra if the quantity of Codeine
Phosphate in 75 corex is considered then the total quantity of Codeine
Phosphate in those bottles would be 15 gm. As per entry no. 28 of the
table, the quantity of 1 Kg. and above would be commercial quantity.
As per the above calculations the total quantity of Codeine Phosphate is
15 gm which is noncommercial in nature. Apart from this the
parameters on which the bail was granted to Ankush Chauhan in the
judgment cited supra are squarely applicable to the case at our hand.
10.
It is equally a matter of record that since her arrest on
28/11/2018 she is in the custody and by this time the entire
investigation might have been completed except collection of CA
certificate.
Thereby, there is no likelihood of tampering with the
evidence or otherwise. Now nothing is to be recovered or discovered on
pointing out of the applicant. The conclusion of the trial in the present
case would take sufficient long time and it is not desirable to keep the
NDPS Spl RA 1181/2018
6
BA 901/2018
accused behind the bars till then. There is neither evidence nor
allegation of any criminal antecedence to the discredit of the applicant.
The applicant/ accused has placed on record the true copy of AADHAR
Card, which shows place of her permanent address and ultimately
minimises the chance of her abscondance. Under these circumstances
her further detention in the judicial custody appears to be unwarranted.
11.
No doubt as reflected in the reply there appears to be
criminal antecedent to the discredit of the applicant but so far there
appears to be no conviction in any of the case.
In the similar
circumstance the Hon’ble High Court granted bail to the accused as
reflected in the following case laws. As regards his submission related to
criminal antecedent he has relied upon following case laws.
a.
Bunty Shankarlal Chugh V/s. State of Maharashtra
and another, in Writ Petition No. 717/2010 decided on
21/06/2010.
b.
Noor Mohammed Shaikh V/s The NCB and
another, in Cri. Bail Application No. 1951/2011 decided
on 17/01/2012.
c.
Raosaheb Patole V/s. The State of Maharashtra, in
Cri. Bail Application No. 373/2011 decided on
24/03/2011.
d.
Vinod Kalyanji Bhagat V/s. Inspector of Customs
and another, in Cri. Application No. 4410/2002 decided
on 23/01/2003.
12.
In view of forgoing discussion, I conclude that application
deserves to be allowed and the interest of prosecution can be secured by
imposing following stringent conditions :
ORDER
1.
Bail Applications No. 901/2018 in NDPS Remand
Application No. 1181/2018 are hereby allowed.
NDPS Spl RA 1181/2018
2.
7
BA 901/2018
The applicant/accused – Firoza Sattar Khan, in C.R.
No. 61/2018, registered with Anti Narcotic Cell, Azad
Maidan, Mumbai, be released on bail on her executing P.R.
Bond of Rs.75,000/ (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand only),
with one or two sureties in the like amount.
3.
The applicant/accused shall not directly or indirectly
dissuade any of the prosecution witnesses from deposing in
the Court or tamper with the prosecution evidence in any
way.
4.
Application is hereby disposed off accordingly.
02.01.2019.
Typed on
: 02.01.2019.
Checked on : 03.01.2019.
Signed on
: 03.01.2019.
(U. M. Mudholkar)
NDPS Special Judge,
Gr. Bombay.
NDPS Spl RA 1181/2018
8
BA 901/2018
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
:
:
03.01.2019, 03.45 pm.
Mrs. Supriya. S. Girkar
Name of the Judge (With Court HHJ Shri. U. M. Mudholkar
Room No.)
C.R. No.43
Date
of
Pronouncement
JUDGMENT/ORDER
of 02.01.2019.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
P.O. on
by 03.01.2019.
signed
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on
03.01.2019.