Mumbai, January 15, 2019 – In a significant ruling yesterday, the Special Court for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, at Gr. Bombay, granted bail to Aniket Madan Singh, a 21-year-old accused in a drug-related case. The court’s decision hinged on the determination that the quantity of “Charas” allegedly seized from Singh (652 grams) falls under the “non-commercial quantity” category, thereby not attracting the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Singh, a resident of Kharghar, Panvel, had been arrested by officers of the Narcotic Control Bureau (NCB), Mumbai, on November 27, 2018, in connection with offences punishable under various sections of the NDPS Act, including 8(c), 20(c), 23(c), 28, and 29.
The Prosecution’s Case
According to the prosecution, the NCB received a tip-off about a suspect, Pappu Chaudhary, who was allegedly dealing in Charas. The information suggested that Chaudhary was slated to deliver contraband to Aniket Singh and another suspect, Krunal Sagar, at a specific location.
A raid was subsequently arranged, during which Aniket Singh was allegedly found accepting 652 grams of Charas from Pappu Chaudhary. Following this, a personal search of Pappu Chaudhary reportedly yielded an additional 2.5 kilograms of Charas, which he was allegedly in the process of delivering to Krunal Sagar. Singh was then arrested. After his police custody, he was moved to judicial custody.
Defence Argues “Non-Commercial Quantity” and No Criminal Antecedents
Represented by Advocate Mr. Taraq Sayed, Aniket Singh sought bail on the grounds of false implication. The defence vehemently argued that the 652 grams of Charas allegedly seized from Singh constituted a “non-commercial quantity,” thus negating the applicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which imposes strict conditions for bail in cases involving commercial quantities.
Mr. Sayed further contended that Singh is a permanent resident of Mumbai, residing with his family, and had no involvement with the larger quantity of Charas found with Pappu Chaudhary that was intended for Krunal Sagar. Emphasizing Singh’s youth (21 years old) and lack of any prior criminal record, the defence assured the court that Singh would adhere to all conditions imposed for his release.
Prosecution Contests, Citing Collective Commercial Quantity
The respondent, the Union of India, represented by Ld. Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Ms. Leena Shinde, strongly opposed the bail application. In their reply dated December 21, 2018, the prosecution asserted that the 652 grams of Charas was seized from Singh in strict adherence to legal provisions.
Crucially, the prosecution argued that the total quantity of Charas found in the possession of all three accused individuals — 5.158 kilograms — was a commercial quantity. Therefore, they contended that Section 37 of the NDPS Act did apply, and there was sufficient material to demonstrate Singh’s involvement in a transaction of commercial quantity of Charas.
Court’s Deliberation and Ruling
After hearing extensive arguments from both sides, Special Judge (NDPS) Shri. U. M. Mudholkar meticulously reviewed the submissions and the available records.
In a pivotal observation, the court noted that while Singh’s “vendor/supplier” (Pappu Chaudhary) was found with a commercial quantity of Charas, there was no established “nexus” between that larger quantity and the 652 grams allegedly found in Aniket Singh’s individual possession.
“It does not transpire from the material so far placed on record that the commercial quantity of charas was either sought by/handed over in the possession of the present applicant by Pappu Chaudhary,” the court stated.
The Judge further clarified, “Therefore, in the considered view of this court the quantity of charas which was allegedly found in the individual possession of the present applicant cannot be mixed or collectively considered with the remaining charas retained in the custody by accused Pappu Chaudhary and subsequently handed over to co-accused Krunal.”
The court unequivocally concluded that Singh’s complicity could only be considered to the extent of the 652 grams of Charas found with him, which is “undoubtedly non-commercial quantity.” This determination directly led to the finding that the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act did not apply in this specific case.
Other Factors Considered for Bail
Beyond the quantity of contraband, the court also considered other factors:
- Custody Duration: Singh had been in custody since November 27, 2018, and the court believed that the investigation was “almost completed,” with only the Chemical Analysis (CA) report pending.
- Witness Tampering: The court noted that most witnesses, except panch witnesses, were public servants, minimizing the likelihood of evidence tampering.
- No Further Recovery: There was nothing left to be recovered or discovered based on Singh’s pointing out.
- Trial Duration: Acknowledging that the trial would likely take a “sufficient long time,” the court deemed it undesirable to keep Singh incarcerated until its conclusion.
- No Criminal Antecedents: The absence of any prior criminal record against Singh also weighed in his favor.
Bail Granted with Stringent Conditions
Considering all these aspects, the court found Singh’s continued detention unwarranted and allowed the bail application. To safeguard the prosecution’s interests, the court imposed several stringent conditions:
- Bail Bond: Aniket Madan Singh is to be released on bail upon executing a Personal Recognizance (P.R.) Bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only), with one or two sureties in the like amount.
- No Witness Tampering: Singh must not, directly or indirectly, dissuade any prosecution witnesses from testifying or tamper with prosecution evidence.
- Address Proof and Mobile Number: Before his release, Singh must produce documentary proof of his residential address (such as AADHAR Card, PAN Card, or Ration Card) and furnish his mobile number.
- No Further Criminal Activity: While on bail, Singh is strictly prohibited from indulging in any criminal activity connected with the NDPS Act.
The bail application, No. 937/2018, in NDPS Remand Application No. 1207/2018, stands disposed of accordingly. The order was signed by Judge U. M. Mudholkar on January 14, 2019, and uploaded on January 15, 2019.
This ruling underscores the judiciary’s nuanced approach to NDPS cases, particularly regarding the distinction between commercial and non-commercial quantities of contraband and its direct impact on bail provisions.