On October 9, 2023, the Special Court for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Greater Bombay, rejected the bail application (BA.834/2023) of Aniket Arvind Chanchal, a student accused of possessing commercial quantities of LSD dots. The court, presided over by Special Judge A.V. Kharkar, determined that the seizure was a “chance recovery” during patrolling and that the accused voluntarily handed over the contraband, thus negating the need for prior information compliance under Section 42 or personal search compliance under Section 50 of the NDPS Act.

Mumbai, October 9, 2023 – In a significant ruling, a Special Court in Greater Bombay today denied bail to Aniket Arvind Chanchal, a student arrested on charges under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. Chanchal was apprehended with 50 LSD dots weighing 0.81 grams, a quantity the court deemed to be of commercial nature, leading to the application of the stringent Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

The case, registered as CR.No.60 of 2023, involved Chanchal and another individual, Ishan Dalvi, who was found with 8 grams of Hydro-ganja. Both were intercepted by officers of the Anti Narcotics Cell (ANC), Kandivali Unit, during a patrolling duty on July 5, 2023, near Khernagar, Bandra (East).

Suspicious Movements Led to Interception

According to court documents, ANC officers observed Chanchal and Dalvi carrying plastic bags and exhibiting suspicious movements. Upon stopping them, Chanchal allegedly disclosed that he was carrying LSD dots, while Dalvi was found with Hydro-ganja. The prosecution argued that this was a “chance recovery” and not based on prior specific intelligence.

Defense Challenges Procedure, Prosecution Counters

Aniket Chanchal’s counsel, Mr. Mishra, vehemently argued that the entire search and seizure procedure was vitiated due to alleged non-compliance with Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act.

• Section 42 (Information Requirement): Mr. Mishra contended that once the police had a suspicion that the accused might be carrying narcotic substances, or when Chanchal himself stated he was carrying LSD dots, it amounted to “information,” necessitating compliance with Section 42. This section typically requires officers to record such information before proceeding with a search.
• Section 50 (Right to be Searched Before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate): The defense further argued that a personal search was conducted without informing Chanchal of his rights under Section 50, which mandates that a person about to be searched be offered the option of being taken before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate.

However, the Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP) Mr. Wajeed Shaikh, representing the State, countered these arguments:

• “Information” vs. “Admission”: APP Shaikh distinguished between “information” under Section 42, which he described as prior and specific intelligence, and an “admission.” He argued that the officers had no prior information about the applicant when they set out on patrol. Chanchal’s statement about carrying LSD dots was an admission made after being stopped and questioned, thus not triggering the Section 42 requirement.
• No “Personal Search”: Regarding Section 50, APP Shaikh asserted that there was no “search” in the traditional sense. He submitted that Chanchal voluntarily took out the bag containing the LSD dots from his pocket and handed it over to the police. Therefore, since no personal search was conducted, the requirement to issue a notice under Section 50 did not apply.

Court Sides with Prosecution on Procedural Compliance

Special Judge A.V. Kharkar concurred with the prosecution’s arguments. In the order, the judge stated that the ANC officers did not possess any specific prior information about the applicant, making it a case of “chance recovery.” The court explicitly agreed that the accused’s statement about carrying narcotic substances could not be construed as “information” as contemplated under Section 42 of the NDPS Act.

Furthermore, the court accepted the argument that Section 50 was not applicable because the applicant was not subjected to a personal search. The order noted, “On going through the panchanama and the FIR what can be gathered is that the applicant voluntarily took out the bag containing the contraband from his pocket and handed it over to the officer. In such case there was no need to issue notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The seizure cannot be vitiated on this grounds.”

Section 37 of NDPS Act Bars Bail

Crucially, the court emphasized that since the applicant was allegedly carrying a commercial quantity of contraband (0.81 grams of LSD dots), Section 37 of the NDPS Act became applicable. This stringent provision places a high bar for granting bail, requiring the court to be satisfied that there are “reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.”

The court found no such reasons in this case, stating, “There are no reasons to believe that the accused is not guilty of the offence or that he would not commit the offence, if released on bail.” Consequently, factors like the applicant’s age, educational qualifications, and absence of prior antecedents could not be considered for bail.

Bail Application Rejected

Ultimately, the court concluded that the bail application lacked merit. The order, dictated on October 9, 2023, and signed on October 17, 2023, officially rejected Bail Application No.834 of 2023, disposing of the matter.

The decision underscores the strict interpretation and application of the NDPS Act by courts, particularly when commercial quantities of illicit substances are involved, and highlights the nuanced legal definitions of “information” and “search” in such cases.