Mumbai: In a significant development, the Special Court for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Greater Bombay, has granted bail to Aniket Arvind Chanchal, a 22-year-old student, who was arrested in connection with a case involving LSD blots and hydro ganja. The bail was granted on January 2, 2024, by H.H. Special Judge (NDPS) Shri A.V. Kharkar, citing “stark differences” in the prosecution’s accounts regarding the search and seizure procedure.
Chanchal, a resident of Kharghar, Mumbai, was arrested by the Anti-Narcotics Cell (ANC) Kandivali Unit in C.R. No. 60 of 2023 for offenses punishable under Sections 8(c) read with Sections 20, 22(C), and 29 of the NDPS Act. This was Chanchal’s second bail application, with the first having been rejected. The current application was filed on “fresh grounds and in changed circumstances,” specifically after the chargesheet had been filed.
Contradictory Accounts Raise Doubts
The core of the defense argument, presented by Advocate Mr. Pathak, revolved around the alleged non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, which mandates that an accused be apprised of their right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. The court meticulously examined the remand report and the panchanama (record of observation), finding significant discrepancies.
According to the prosecution’s case, during routine patrolling, ANC officers observed two young boys, one of whom, identified as Aniket Chanchal, was carrying a bag. Upon noticing the police, Chanchal allegedly thrust the bag into his pocket and attempted to leave the spot. The officers stopped them, and Chanchal reportedly gave “evasive replies” about the bag’s contents. Panch witnesses were then arranged, and Chanchal was “apprised of the right under section 50 of the NDPS Act” before being searched. This search, as per the initial claim, led to the recovery of LSD blots weighing 0.81 grams. The other accused was found with “hydro ganja in non-commercial quantity.”
However, a closer look at the documents revealed a different story. The remand report stated that Chanchal was informed of his Section 50 rights and then searched, leading to the recovery of LSD blots. In stark contrast, the panchanama indicated that Chanchal was questioned about the plastic bag he had “hurriedly thrust in his pocket.” It further stated that upon questioning, Chanchal replied that the bag contained LSD blots. Only after this admission and the handing over of the bag was a notice issued to him, and “nothing was recovered during his personal search.”
Special Judge A.V. Kharkar noted, “There is a stark difference in the version given in the panchanama and the remand report.” The court highlighted that if the remand report’s version was true, the recovery was made during a search after Section 50 notice. Conversely, if the panchanama was accurate, the contraband was “voluntarily handed over to police” before the Section 50 notice. This inconsistency, the judge concluded, “creates a doubt about the procedure adopted by the ANC officer.”
Prosecution’s Story Deemed “Inherently Unreliable”
The defense also raised questions about the plausibility of the prosecution’s narrative, pointing out that the “transparent bag” allegedly carried by Chanchal was not seized. Furthermore, it was argued that “a plastic bag containing just 0.80 grams of paper would be very inconspicuous to be visible from a patrolling vehicle,” making the prosecution’s case “suspicious.”
The court found it “impossible to believe that a person to give evasive replies to the police and in span of few minutes, in presence of panch witnesses, the same person voluntarily make statement that he is possessing a particular narcotic substance which is used for intoxication.” This inherent unreliability further strengthened the doubt regarding the proper adherence to legal procedures.
Bar of Section 37 Lifted
The judge ultimately concluded that “a serious doubt is created as to whether the applicant was informed his rights under section 50 of the NDPS Act before conducting his personal search.” In such circumstances, the court ruled that the stringent bar of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is lifted. Section 37 of the NDPS Act typically makes it difficult to grant bail in cases involving commercial quantities of contraband unless the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offense while on bail.
Considering Chanchal’s age (22 years), his student status, and the absence of any prior criminal antecedents, the court deemed him eligible for bail, albeit with stringent conditions.
Bail Conditions Imposed
Aniket Arvind Chanchal has been released on furnishing a solvent surety and a Personal Recognizance (P.R.) bond of Rs. 70,000/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand Only). The conditions for his bail include:
- Providing residential addresses, mobile numbers, and email addresses (if any) for both the applicant and his surety.
- Not tampering with evidence or offering inducement or threatening prosecution witnesses.
- Marking his presence with the ANC Kandivali Unit every Monday and Saturday between 11:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. until further order, to ensure he does not flee.
- Furnishing residential proof and depositing his Passport (if any) with the Investigating Officer, with intimation to the court, prior to his release.
- Not committing offenses of a similar nature.
The bail application, BA. No. 1030 of 2023, in NDPS Remand Application No. 912 of 2023, has been disposed of. This ruling underscores the critical importance of strict adherence to procedural safeguards, particularly Section 50 of the NDPS Act, in drug-related cases.