IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR N.D.P.S. CASES
AT GREATER MUMBAI
BAIL APPLICATION NO.787 OF 2018
IN
N.D.P.S. REMAND APPLICATION NO.1016 OF 2018
IN
N.D.P.S. C.R. NO.46 OF 2018
CNR NO. : MHCC02­013904­2018
Irfan Yasin Shaikh,
]
Age : 36 years,
]
R/o.: 123, Ammu Suleman Building,
]
1st Floor, Room No.19, Udriya Street,
]
Suleman Chowki, Nagpada, Mumbai – 08. ]
(Presently in Judicial Custody)
]
… Applicant/
Accused
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra
]
(A.N.C. Unit, vide C.R.No.46/18
dated 15/10/2018).

]
]
… Respondent
CORAM : HIS HONOUR THE SPECIAL JUDGE
M. S. MUNGALE (C.R.NO.44)
DATE : 13th November, 2018.
Mr. Gorakh Liman, Ld. Adv. for the applicant/accused.
Mr. B. G. Rajput, Ld. A.P.P. for the respondent/State.
ORDER
1.

The applicant/accused, who was arrested in A.N.C.

Ghatkopar Unit C.R. No.46/2018, has filed this application under
­2­
BA 787/18 in RA 1016/18
Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for release on bail. The
applicant/accused was arrested on 15/10/2018 for the offence under
Section 9(A) punishable under Section 25(A) of the Narcotics Drugs
and Substances Act, 1985. The applicant/accused has claimed bail on
various grounds mentioned in the application.
2.

The application is opposed by the Investigating Officer
Police Sub­Inspector Chavhan by filing reply dated 12/11/2018 on the
various grounds mentioned in the reply.
3.

As per the prosecution case, by conducting raid on
15/10/2018 at Lal Bahadur Shastri Road, opposite to Petrol Pump,
Kurla (W), Mumbai, the controlled substance namely Pseudo­Ephedrine
weighing about 2 kilograms was seized from the possession of the
applicant/accused.
4.

The learned Advocate for the applicant/accused has
contended that there is no bar under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act for
granting bail to the applicant/accused. He has contended that the
accused is a permanent resident on Mumbai on the address mentioned
in the application.
5.

The learned A.P.P. for the respondent/State has contended
that initially the applicant/accused had given his residential address at
123, Ammu Suleman Building at Nagpada, Mumbai, but, on the said
address, the applicant/accused does not reside and that the said house
is owned by his mother and it is leased by her to Fehmidar Mausin
Shaikh and Mausin Yasin Shaikh by accepting heavy deposit.

­3­
BA 787/18 in RA 1016/18
Thereafter, during police interrogation, the applicant/accused had
given his another address at 196/198, City Tower, Basera, Flat No.3, 1 st
floor, Mahatma Phule Peth, Mominpura, Pune, but, on the said address,
some different tenant has occupied the premises. The learned A.P.P.
has further contended that thereafter, the applicant/accused had given
his address at 747/21, Ramesh Niwas, 2 nd floor, Room No.10, Agarwal
Colony, Bhawani Peth, Kamalmala, Pune. When the applicant/accused
was taken to the said address, it was found that the brother of the
applicant/accused namely Imran resides on the said address. The
applicant/accused has not given his correct residential address,
therefore, according to the learned A.P.P., if bail is granted to the
applicant/accused, he will abscond and will not come to the Court to
face the trial. On these submissions, the learned A.P.P. has resisted the
application.
6.

In the bail application, address of the applicant/accused is
given as 123, Ammu Suleman Building, 1st Floor, Room No.19, Udriya
Street, Suleman Chowki, Nagpada, Mumbai – 08. No address proof is
annexed to this bail application. On perusal of the remand report, it
appears that on two occasions, police custody of the applicant/accused
was extended to find out his correct residential address. It appears that
there is substance in the submission of the learned A.P.P. that the
applicant/accused has not provided correct address of his residence.
Therefore, though, there is no bar under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act
to consider bail application of the applicant/accused and the alleged
substance attached from his possession is controlled substance, the
applicant/accused has not given proper address, therefore, if bail is
granted to him, it is likely that he may jump the bail and he will not
­4­
BA 787/18 in RA 1016/18
turn to the Court to face the trial. Therefore, it is not safe to release the
applicant/accused on bail. Hence, I pass the following order :­
ORDER
1.

Bail application No.787/2018 is rejected.

2.

The applicant/accused Irfan Yasin Shaikh is at liberty to
file fresh bail application with permanent residential address proof.
3.

Application stands disposed off accordingly.

(M. S. Mungale)
N.D.P.S. Special Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Mumbai.

Date : 13/11/2018.
Dictated on
Transcribed on
Signed on
:
:
:
13/11/2018.
13/11/2018.

“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
14/11/2018 at 5.30 p.m.

NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Bahushruta Y. Jambhale
Name of the Judge ( With Court H.H.J. Shri. M. S. Mungale
room no.)
(Court Room No.44)
Date
of
Pronouncement
JUDGEMENT/ORDER
of 13/11/2018.

JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O. on
14/11/2018.

JUDGEMENT/ORDER uploaded on
14/11/2018.