1
BA 875/18 (RA 1158/18)
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR N.D.P.S CASES FOR
GREATER BOMBAY AT MUMBAI
NDPS BAIL APPLICATION NO.875/2018
IN
N.D.P.S. R.A. No. 1158/2018
Sadanand Waman Rane
..Applicant/Accused
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra,
(at the instance DCB CID, Unit 12,
C.R. No. 16/18)
…Respondents
Appearances:­
Ld. Advocate Mr. Gorakh Liman for applicant/accused.
Ld. APP Mr. P.S Tawade for Respondent/State.
Coram :H.H.J The Special Judge (NDPS)
Shri. V.V. Vidwans (CR No.42).
Date : 12.12.2018
ORAL ORDER
1.

This is an application for grant of regular bail u/s. 439 of
Cr.P.C filed on behalf of accused Sadanand Rane. Say of IO and Ld. APP
was called and it is submitted on record vide Exh.2. Seen and
considered the say.
2.

I have heard oral submissions of Ld. Adv. Mr. Liman for the
accused and Ld. APP Mr. Tawade for the State.
3.

It is submitted on behalf of the accused that, on
15.11.2018, while police officers of DCB CID, Unit 12 were on
patrolling duty at around 4 pm, they had arrested the accused nos. 1
and 2 i.e. Manishkumar Kushwah and Rajesh Choudhary respectively
2
BA 875/18 (RA 1158/18)
from Gawade Nagar, Rickshaw stand, Raval Pada, Dahisar(E), Mumbai
and total 1100 bottles of Codeine cough syrup and 2675 tablets of
Alprazolam were recovered from their possession as per panchanama.
Accordingly, an FIR was registered against accused nos. 1 and 2 as
stated above. It is further submitted that, during investigation of the
case, accused nos. 1 and 2 revealed name of present accused/ applicant
Sadanand Rane and on 22.11.2018 the police had arrested him in a
trap laid at Rawalpada, Dahisar, Mumbai on the basis of an
information. It is specifically submitted that, the applicant/ accused has
been falsely implicated in this case. Nothing has been recovered from
his possession. Therefore, stringent provisions of Sec.37 of NDPS Act
are not attracted. The applicant/ accused no.3 has been arrested only
on the basis of statements of co­accused, which are not admissible in
law. Hon’ble High Court has granted bail to the accused in similar
circumstances. It was submitted that,
the applicant was previously
arrested in a narcotic case, but he has been released on bail in that case.
The accused is ready and willing to abide by the conditions if any
imposed by the Court. Hence, bail may be granted.
4.

Ld. APP has strongly opposed the application and relied on
the say and submitted that, the accused is the main person who used to
supply contraband bottles of cough syrup to accused nos. 1 and 2 as per
statements. Total recovery of the contraband in the present case
consisted of 1100 bottles of Codeine cough syrup (valued at
Rs.1,32,000/­) recovered from accused no.1, 2675 tablets Alprazlam
(valued at Rs. 66,425/­) from accused no.2 and auto rickshaw worth
Rs.1,50,000/­, thus total value of the seized contraband along with
rickshaw bearing No. MH 47 X 8320 comes to Rs.3,48,425/­. Ld. APP
further submitted that, during investigation, it is revealed that the
3
BA 875/18 (RA 1158/18)
present applicant / applicant was supplying contraband to accused nos.
1 and 2 from Ahmedabad, State of Gujarat by using private bus travel
services.
5.

Ld. APP further submitted that, the accused is a habitual
offender and previously C.R. No.15/16 u/s. 8(c)r/w. 22,29 of NDPS Act
is pending against him and he is on bail in the said case. If bail is
granted to the applicant, he is likely to abscond and commit similar
offence in future. Investigation is still in progress and C.A. Report is
awaited. Under the above circumstances, he submitted that, application
for bail is liable to be rejected.
6.

I have gone through the grounds stated in the application
and taken into consideration say filed on behalf of State and also taken
into consideration oral submissions made by Ld. Counsels for both
sides.
7.

It is clear from prima facie material on record that nothing
has been recovered from the possession of the applicant/ accused and
he has been arrested on the say of accused nos.1 and 2. Therefore
stringent provisions of Sec.37 of the Act are not applicable. Statement
of co­accused is not admissible in law. Mere pendency of previous cases
under NDPS Act cannot be a sufficient circumstance to refuse bail to the
accused. Therefore, I am of the opinion that, if strict conditions are
imposed and bail is granted to the accused, it will serve the purpose of
the prosecution. Hence, following order:­
4
BA 875/18 (RA 1158/18)
ORDER
1.

Bail Application No.875 of 2018 is hereby allowed.

2.

Applicant/ accused no.3 Sadanand Waman Rane
shall be released on his executing P.R.Bond of
Rs.50,000/­ (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) with one or
two local sureties to the above extent.

3.

The applicant/accused to attend the I.O at DCB CID,
Unit­12 for the purpose of investigation once in a
fortnight on 1st and 3rd Saturday of the month
between 11.00 am to 2.00 pm till filing of the charge­
sheet. If I.O is absent, then he should give attendance
to the PSO Incharge.

4.

The applicant/ accused shall not tamper with
prosecution witnesses/evidence in any manner and
co­operate in the investigation.

5.

The applicant/ accused shall furnish his cell/ landline
number and also of his two nearest relatives or his
two friends each, preferably residing in Mumbai.

6.

The applicant/accused shall produce the proof of his
identity and proof of residence at Mumbai at the time
of executing the bail bond.

7.

The applicant/ accused shall not commit similar
offence while on bail.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions by
5
the
applicant/accused
BA 875/18 (RA 1158/18)
no.3,
it
would
entail
cancellation of bail.
Bail
Appln.

No.875/18
stands
disposed
of
accordingly.

Date:­ 12.12.2018
Dictated on:12.12.2018
Transcribed on: 12.12.2018
HHJ signed on: 12.12.2018
(V.V. Vidwans)
N.D.P.S Special Judge
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay (CR 42).

“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/
ORDER.
UPLOADED ON : 13.12.2018
TIME: 4.50 pm
(NITIN V. UBALE)
SELECTION GR. STENOGRAPHER.

Name of the judge (with Court Room No.)

Shri V.V. Vidwans, Spl. Judge & Addl.
Sessions Judge (C.R. 42)
Date of pronouncement of Judgment/ Order
12.12.18
Judgment/ order signed by P.O on
12.12.18
Judgment/ order uploaded on
13.12.18