Mumbai, November 21, 2018 – The Special Judge for N.D.P.S. Cases for Greater Bombay, Shri V.V. Vidwans (C.R. No. 42), today granted bail to Girish Yadav Kakade and Timappa Maruti Vaidya, who were arrested in connection with the seizure of 8 kilograms of ganja. The ruling came in Criminal Bail Application No. 811/2018.

The applicants were arrested for allegedly committing offenses punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 20 and 29 of the NDPS Act. According to the prosecution, a raid conducted by Shahu Nagar police on October 30, 2018, led to the recovery of 8 kilograms of ganja from their possession.

Ld. Advocate Mr. V.P. Shinde, representing the applicants, argued that the seized quantity of 8 kilograms of ganja is a non-commercial quantity, thus the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted. He emphasized that the applicants are permanent residents with deep roots in society, providing address proofs such as Aadhar Card, Election Card, Ration Card, and PAN card. He assured the court that the applicants were ready to abide by any conditions imposed.

Ld. APP Mr. P.S. Tawade, representing the State, strongly opposed the bail, citing the applicants as habitual offenders. He presented a long list of previous cases against Girish Yadav Kakade (applicant no. 1), including multiple IPC cases, numerous NDPS Act cases (CR/LAC Nos. 514/14, 226/15, 270/15, 533/17, 492/17, 575/17), and several cases under “edksik” (which appears to be a transcription error and likely refers to another act or type of case). The APP contended that if granted bail, the applicants were likely to abscond and repeat similar offenses.

In response, Mr. Shinde cited several High Court authorities, arguing that mere pendency of criminal cases does not automatically label an accused as a “habitual offender” in the context of denying bail, especially when the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not applicable. The authorities relied upon included:

1. Smt. Najma Abdul Shaikh V/s. The State of Maharashtra (Cri. Bail Application No. 1311 of 2012)
2. Vinod Kalyanji Bhagat V/s. Inspector of Customs and anr (Cri. Application No. 4410 of 2002)
3. Raosaheb Patole V/s. The State of Maharashtra (Cri. Bail Application No. 373 of 2011)
4. Janu @ Billa Malappa Pawar V/s. State of Maharashtra (2006 ALL MR (Cri) 2577)
5. Bunty Shankarlal Chugh V/s. State of Maharashtra & Anr (Writ Petition NO. 717 of 2010)
6. Noor Mohammed Shaikh V/s. The NCB and Anr. (Cri. Bail Application No.1951 of 2011)

The Special Judge, Shri V.V. Vidwans, after reviewing these authorities, concurred that the Hon’ble High Court has indeed held that mere pendency of criminal cases against an accused cannot solely be the basis for concluding they are a habitual offender.

Considering that the seized quantity of 8 kgs of ganja is a non-commercial quantity, thus not attracting Section 37, and in light of the precedents set by the High Court, the judge concluded that the court was empowered to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to grant bail. The applicants’ submitted proofs of residence were also taken into account.

Order:

1. Bail Application No. 811/2018 is hereby allowed.
2. Applicants Girish Yadav Kakade and Timappa Maruti Vaidya are to be released on their executing Personal Recognizance (P.R.) Bonds of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each, with one or two local sureties each for the like amount.
3. The applicants shall report to the Investigating Officer at Shahu Nagar police station once in a fortnight on the 1st and 3rd Saturday of the month, between 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM, until the charge-sheet is filed. If the I.O. is absent, they must report to the PSO Incharge.
4. The applicants shall not tamper with prosecution witnesses or evidence and must cooperate with the investigation.
5. They shall furnish their cell/landline numbers, along with those of two nearest relatives or friends residing in Mumbai.
6. They must produce proof of identity and residence in Mumbai at the time of executing the bail bonds.
7. The applicants shall not commit similar offenses while on bail.

The court warned that breach of any of these conditions would entail cancellation of bail.

The order was dictated on November 21, 2018, and signed on November 26, 2018, and subsequently uploaded on the same day.