Mumbai, Maharashtra – In a significant ruling emphasizing the serious nature of drug trafficking, a Special Court for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, at Greater Bombay, has rejected the bail application of Mustakeem Mohd. Ali, a 21-year-old from Kerala. Ali was arrested in connection with the seizure of 465 grams of Amphetamine, a psychotropic substance valued at ₹23.25 lakhs, which was allegedly being smuggled from Mumbai to Qatar.

Special Judge (NDPS) Shri U.M. Mudholkar, presiding over the case (NDPS Bail Application No. 717 of 2018), delivered the oral order on November 21, 2018. The case, registered as C.R. No. 41/2018 by the Anti Narcotic Cell (ANC), Kandivali Unit, Mumbai, involves charges under Sections 8(c) read with 22(C), 23, and 29 of the NDPS Act.

The Prosecution’s Case: A Web of Conspiracy

The prosecution, represented by Ld. APP Mr. Panjwani, laid out a detailed narrative of the alleged drug trafficking operation. The case began with an intelligence tip-off received by officers of the ANC from the authorities at Chhatrapati Shivaji International (CSI) Airport, Mumbai. The information indicated that a co-accused, Furkanam, was attempting to clear passport control for a flight to Qatar with contraband concealed in her baggage.

Acting on this information, PI Kadam of the ANC recorded the details in the information book and station diary. A subsequent search of Furkana’s three bags, aided by a dog sniffing squad, revealed 465 grams of Amphetamine cleverly hidden within three storybooks, thirteen wax bangles, and skipping ropes. The contraband was seized, and an FIR was lodged, leading to Furkana’s immediate arrest.

During her custodial interrogation, Furkana allegedly disclosed that the trolley bags containing the drugs were handed over to her by co-accused Tabassum and Rashid Faras at Hotel Shalimar. Consequently, Tabassum and Rashid Faras were also arrested.

The investigation further deepened when co-accused Rashid Faras, during his interrogation, implicated Niyaz, Shoeb, Abdul Rashid, and the present applicant, Mustakeem Mohd. Ali. Faras claimed that these individuals had stayed at Hotel Zamzam, where, allegedly at Mustakeem’s direction, the bags were given to him. Rashid Faras then, with Tabassum’s assistance, delivered the bags to Furkana at Hotel Shalimar for their onward journey to Qatar. Mustakeem Mohd. Ali was subsequently arrested and is currently in judicial custody after his ANC custody expired.

Applicant’s Plea for Bail

Mr. Taraq Sayyed, the learned advocate for Mustakeem Mohd. Ali, argued for his client’s bail on several grounds. He asserted that Mustakeem was falsely implicated and that no contraband was recovered directly from his possession, either at the scene of the arrest or during the subsequent investigation based on his statements. He contended that his client had been thoroughly interrogated, rendering further judicial custody unnecessary.

Crucially, Mr. Sayyed argued that Mustakeem’s arrest was based solely on the statement of a co-accused, which, he claimed, could not be considered “legal evidence” for denying bail. He highlighted that Mustakeem is a permanent resident of Kerala with “deep roots in society” and expressed his client’s readiness to abide by any conditions imposed by the court for his release.

Prosecution’s Strong Opposition

The respondent State, through its reply dated October 19, 2018, and the arguments of Ld. APP Mr. Panjwani, vehemently opposed the bail application. The prosecution emphasized that a commercial quantity of Amphetamine (465 grams) was seized from co-accused Furkana, and that this smuggling operation was being carried out with the assistance of the applicant and his other associates, aimed at exporting drugs from Mumbai to Qatar.

The prosecution stressed that the investigation was not only “progressive” but also at a “crucial stage.” They informed the court that the investigation involved the analysis of Call Detail Records (CDRs) and the expertise of cyber experts, in addition to the scrutiny of CCTV footage. Furthermore, several key accused individuals, namely Shoeb, Niyaz, Munis, and Mohasin, were yet to be arrested to fully ascertain the “depth of their complicity” in the alleged offenses. The prosecution argued that granting bail at this stage would cause “serious prejudice” to the investigating agency.

Court’s Detailed Analysis and Rejection of Bail

Special Judge U.M. Mudholkar meticulously considered all submissions and the evidence on record. The court made several pivotal observations:

• Compliance with Procedure: The court noted that the information received was duly recorded in the information book by the officer, indicating prima facie compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act regarding information recording.
• Complicity of Applicant: While acknowledging that no contraband was seized directly from Mustakeem, the court found clear evidence of his involvement. The investigation revealed a chain of custody where the contraband was handed over to the prime accused, Furkana, by Tabassum and Rashid Faras, who in turn received it from Mustakeem and his associates. The court concluded that, at this stage, “the complicity of the present applicant in the commission of alleged offences is clearly visible on record.”
• Commercial Quantity and Section 37: The court definitively stated that the 465 grams of Amphetamine seized constitutes a commercial quantity. This finding is critical because it triggers the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which significantly restricts the power to grant bail. Under Section 37, the court must 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.”
• Ongoing and Crucial Investigation: The judge strongly concurred with the prosecution that the investigation was not only ongoing but at a “crucial stage,” requiring the analysis of CDRs, cyber expertise, and CCTV footage. The pending arrests of other named accused individuals (Shoeb, Niyaz, Munis, and Mohasin) were cited as further reasons why granting bail would impede the investigation.
• Serious Nature of Offence: The court highlighted that the alleged offenses attract a “stringent rigorous punishment of 20 years,” underscoring the gravity of the crime.

Considering all these aspects, Special Judge Mudholkar concluded that granting bail to Mustakeem Mohd. Ali at this juncture was “not at all desirable.” The court explicitly rejected the arguments advanced on behalf of the applicant.

Consequently, NDPS Bail Application No. 717 of 2018 was rejected and disposed of. The ruling underscores the judiciary’s firm stance against serious drug trafficking offenses, particularly when commercial quantities are involved and the investigation is still active and complex.