NDPS Spl RA 917/2018
BA 770/2018
1
IN THE SPECIAL COURT FOR NARCOTICS DRUGS AND
PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985, AT GR. BOMBAY
NDPS BAIL APPLICATION NO. 770 OF 2018
IN
NDPS SPL. REMAND APPLICATION NO. 917 OF 2018
Rashid Hasan Faras,
Aged­34 years, Occ. : Driver,
R/A Kadi Machine, Kodi Farm,
Madina Colony, Moiddin Estate,
Second Cross, Bhatkal,
Dist.: Karwar, Karnataka.
Vs.
State (at the instance of
Anti Narcotic Cell, Kadivali Unit, Mumbai).

… Applicant
/Accused
…. Respondent
Appearance:
Ld. Advocate Mr. Tabrez Jabali @ Ld. Advocate Mr. S. M. Shoeb 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: 21st NOVEMBER, 2018.
ORAL ORDER
This is an application for bail filed by applicant/ accused­
Rashid Hasan Faras, on account of his arrest by the officers of the Anti
Narcotic Cell, Kandivali Unit, Mumbai for commission of offences
punishable u/s. 8(c) r/w 22(C), 23 and 29 of NDPS Act, 1985.

NDPS Spl RA 917/2018
2.

2
BA 770/2018
The prosecution case in nutshell reveals that the officers of
respondent received an information from the the authorities of CSI
Airport, Mumbai that the co­accused Furkana along with her baggage
came to passport clearance counter for proceeding to Qatar. Therefore,
PI Kadam noted down the information in the information book as well
as station diary and with the help of dog sniffing squad the 3 baggage
of co­accused Furkana were checked in which 3 story books, 13 wax
bangles and skipping ropes were found in which 465 gms of
Psychotropic substance called Amphetamine valued of Rs.23,25,000/­
was found concealed. The same came to be seized and the FIR was
lodged. Accordingly, co­accused Furkana came to be arrested and crime
bearing CR No.41/2018 was registered under aforesaid section of NDPS
Act. During custodial interrogation co­accused Furkana disclosed that,
those trolley bags were given to her by co­accused Tabassum and
applicant/accused Rashid Faras at Hotel Shalimar. Therefore, both the
co­accused Tabassum and applicant/ accused came to be arrested.
During custodial interrogation applicant/ accused Rashid Faras
disclosed that persons by name Abdul Rashid, Niyaz, Shoeb & co­
accused Mustakeem had stayed in Hotel Zhamzham wherein as per the
direction of co­accused Mustakeem the baggages were handed over to
him who, with the help of co­accused Tabassum handed over the same
to co­accused Furkana at hotel Shalimar, for carrying the same
to
Qatar. The present applicant/accused Rashid Hasan Faras after
cessation of his ANC custody, is in judicial custody.
3.

The bail is sought on the ground that applicant/accused is
falsely implicated in the crime. There is no recovery of any contraband
either at the spot or during the course of investigation, on pointing out
of the present applicant. The applicant has been thoroughly
NDPS Spl RA 917/2018
3
BA 770/2018
interrogated and extension of his judicial custody is unwarranted. He
has been arrested on the statement of co­accused which can not be
categorized as legal evidence. The applicant/accused is permanent
resident of Karnataka and having deep roots in the society. 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/State contested the petition by filing reply
dated 13/11/2018.

The bail application is mainly objected on the
grounds that the commercial quantity of contraband i.e. 465 gms of
Amphetamine was found in the possession of the co­accused Furkana
and with the help of applicant and his other associates it was being
exported to Qatar from Mumbai. It is further contented that,
investigation is progressive and is at crucial stage. On these grounds it is
prayed for the rejection of the application.
5.

Heard Ld. Advocate Mr. S. M. Shoeb for applicant and the
Ld. APP Mr. Panjwani for the State, at length. The submissions of both
the sides were as per the contents of the application and reply.
6.

I have carefully considered the submissions and record. It
appears that, the information has been noted down in the information
book by the officer by whom it was received and thus prima facie there
appears to be compliance of mandatory provision contained in NDPS
Act.

It is true that, no contraband was actually seized from the
possession of applicant Rashid Faras but, during the course of
investigation it has been revealed that, the contraband was handed
over to prime accused Fukrana by co­accused Tabassum and her
NDPS Spl RA 917/2018
BA 770/2018
4
associate Rashid Faras i.e. present applicant. The investigation further
reveals
that,
the
applicant/accused
contraband
Rashid
Faras
was
by
handed
over
co­accused
to
present
Abdul
Rashid,
Mustakeem and his associates. Thus, the complicity of the present
applicant in the commission of alleged offences is clearly visible on
record, at least at this stage.

In other words, at this stage prima facie
there is material on the record demonstrating applicant’s involvement in
the commission of alleged offences.
7.

The commercial quantity of Amphetamine appears to have
been seized by following due procedure and therefore, the bar of
Section 37 of NDPS Act would certainly get attracted, which debars the
applicant from getting bail. The investigation is not only progressive
but, at the crucial stage and the help of CDR as well as cyber experts is
being taken for completion of the investigation. Similarly, the CCTV
footage is also being scrutinized. The wanted accused persons by name
Shoeb, Niyaz, Munis and Mohasin are yet to be arrested to ascertain the
depth of their complicity in the commission of alleged offences.

In
other words, the charge­sheet is not yet filed and there is material on
record prima facie showing involvement of the applicant in the
commission of alleged offences. The release of the applicant on bail
may cause serious prejudice to the investigation agency.
8.

Considering all these aspects in the considered view of this
court release of the present accused on bail for the offences which
attract stringent rigorous punishment of 20 years is not at all desirable.
Hence, by rejecting the argument advanced on behalf of the applicant/
accused following order is passed.

NDPS Spl RA 917/2018
BA 770/2018
5
ORDER
Bail Application No.770 of 2018 in NDPS Remand
Application No. 917/2017 stands rejected and disposed off accordingly.

21.11.2018.

Typed on
Checked on
Signed on
(U. M. Mudholkar)
NDPS Special Judge,
Gr. Bombay.

:21.11.2018.
:21.11.2018.
:21.11.2018.

“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
:
:
22.11.2018, 05.30 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 21.11.2018.

JUDGMENT/ORDER
P.O. on
by 21.11.2018.

signed
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on
22.11.2018.