Mohsin Maiuddin Shaikh Chinku Vs State of Maharashtra Bombay Sessions Court Criminal Bail Application No 629 of 2018

NDPS RA 874/2018
1
BA 629/2018
IN THE SPECIAL COURT FOR NARCOTIC DRUGS AND
PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985, AT GR. BOMBAY
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 629 OF 2018
IN
NDPS REMAND APPLICATION NO. 874 OF 2018
Mohsin Maiddun Shaikh @ Chinku,
Age­ 25 years, R/A Pushpa Vihar Colony,
Ambewadi, S. V. Road, Nera Shankar
Mandir, Dahisar (E), Mumbai – 68.

… Applicant
/ Accused
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra,
(MHB Colony Police Station, vide
C.R. No. 25/2018 dated 07/09/2018).

… Respondent.

Appearance:
Ld. Advocate Mr. Liman for the applicant/ accused.
Ld. APP Mr. Panjwani for the prosecution.
CORAM: H.H.THE SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS)
SHRI. U. M. MUDHOLKAR
(C.R.NO.43)
DATED: 20th OCTOBER, 2018.
ORAL ORDER
This is an application for bail filed by applicant/accused
Mohsin Maiddun Shaikh @ Chinku on account of his arrest by the
officers of MHB Colony Police Station, Mumbai for commission of
offences punishable u/s. 8(c) r/w 20(B) of NDPS Act, 1985.
2.

The
prosecution
case
in
nutshell
reveals
that
on
07/09/2018 the team of MHB Colony Police Station, was on patrolling
NDPS RA 874/2018
2
BA 629/2018
duty and at the given spot accused was found loitering there in a
suspicious circumstance and therefore, immediately two panch
witnesses were called and the bag possessed by him was checked and
was found containing 2 Kg 50 gm of ganja.

Thereafter, the
applicant/accused was placed under arrest for violation of provision of
NDPS Act,1985 as above.

After cessation of his police custody,
presently he is in judicial custody.
3.

The bail is sought on the ground that applicant/accused is
falsely implicated in the crime. It is specifically contended that the
quantity of ganja allegedly seized from the possession of the present
applicant comes under the category of non­commercial quantity and
therefore, the bar of Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not get attracted.
So, also the applicants/accused is permanent resident of Mumbai.
Earlier the applicant/accused was arrested in narcotic case but in the
said case he is on bail. He is ready to abide by the conditions imposed
by this Court, while releasing him on the bail. On these grounds it is
prayed that applicant/ accused be enlarged on bail.
4.

The respondent was served twice as per the documents
placed on record by the applicant. But it neglected to respond and failed
to file the reply. In other words the application has not been countered
meaning thereby there is implied consent to grant the application. The
Ld. APP contested the petition by filing reply on the application itself. It
is mainly contended that the quantity of ganja involved in the present
case is intermediate and therefore, bail application is liable for rejection.
5.

Heard Ld. Advocate Mr. Liman for applicant & the Ld. APP
Mr. Panjwani for the State, at length.

NDPS RA 874/2018
6.

3
BA 629/2018
It is submitted by the Ld. Defence Counsel that the quantity
of ganja allegedly seized at the instance of applicant/accused is the non­
commercial quantity, as per the details reflected in the reply and
therefore, primarily the bar as contemplated u/s.37 of the NDPS Act,
does not attract.

It is further contended the applicant is having
permanent place of residence, as reflected in the remand application
and therefore, he will not abscond, if released on bail. As such he
requested to release the applicant on bail. Per contra the Ld APP Mr.
Panjwani objected granting of the application on the grounds reflected
in the reply.
7.

I have carefully gone through submissions of both the sides
and record. It can be gathered from the material placed on record that
the applicant is allegedly found having in his possession 2 Kg 50 gm of
ganja which is undoubtedly non­commercial quantity. Naturally the
bar under section 37 of the NDPS Act does not get attracted.
8.

It is equally a matter of record that since his arrest on
07/09/2018 he is in the custody and by this time the investigation in
the matter might have been almost completed, except the collection of
the CA Report from competent authority. 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 applicant behind the bars till
then. Under these circumstances, his further detention in the judicial
custody appears to be
unwarranted.

Applicant has fixed place of
residence as reflected in the remand application and as such there is
minimal chance of his abscondance. In the application the applicant
NDPS RA 874/2018
4
BA 629/2018
has mentioned that there is criminal antecedents to his dis­credit but its
nature is neither disclosed by him nor pointed out by the respondent by
filing reply. Therefore, this aspect looses its importance. 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
Application
No.

629/2018
in
NDPS
Remand
Application No. 874/2018 is hereby allowed as under:
2.

The applicant/accused­ Mohsin Maiddun Shaikh @ Rinku,
in C.R. No.25/2018 registered with MHB Colony Police Station,
Mumbai, be released on bail on his executing P.R. Bond of
Rs.60,000/­ (Rs. Sixty 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.

Bail Application stands disposed off accordingly.

20.10.2018.
Typed on
: 20.10 .2018.
Checked on : 20.10 .2018.
Signed on
: 20.10 .2018.

(U. M. Mudholkar)
NDPS Special Judge,
Gr. Bombay.

NDPS RA 874/2018
5
BA 629/2018
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
:
:
24.10.2018, 12.30 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 20.10.2018.

JUDGMENT/ORDER
P.O. on
by 20.10.2018.

signed
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on
24.10.2018.