Mumbai: The Special Judge for NDPS Cases, Shri V.V. Vidwans (CR No.42), has granted bail to Sadanand Waman Rane, who was arrested in connection with a large seizure of Codeine cough syrup and Alprazolam tablets. The order, issued on December 12, 2018, allows Rane’s release on a personal recognizance (P.R.) bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one or two local sureties for the same amount.
Rane was arrested by DCB CID, Unit 12, in connection with C.R. No. 16/18, under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Background of the Case
According to the prosecution, on November 15, 2018, police officers arrested co-accused Manishkumar Kushwah and Rajesh Choudhary from Dahisar (E), Mumbai. From their possession, police allegedly recovered 1100 bottles of Codeine cough syrup (valued at Rs. 1,32,000/-) and 2675 tablets of Alprazolam (valued at Rs. 66,425/-). An auto-rickshaw worth Rs. 1,50,000/- was also seized, bringing the total value of the seized contraband and vehicle to Rs. 3,48,425/-.
During the investigation, co-accused Manishkumar Kushwah and Rajesh Choudhary reportedly revealed Sadanand Rane’s name. Consequently, Rane was arrested on November 22, 2018, in a trap laid at Rawalpada, Dahisar, Mumbai, based on this information. The prosecution alleged that Rane was the main supplier of the contraband, transporting it from Ahmedabad, Gujarat, using private bus services. The APP further stated that Rane is a habitual offender, with a previous NDPS case (C.R. No. 15/16 under Sections 8(c) read with 22, 29 of NDPS Act) pending against him, in which he is currently on bail. The prosecution also noted that the Chemical Analyzer (C.A.) Report was still awaited and feared that Rane might abscond or commit similar offenses if released on bail.
Arguments for and Against Bail
Learned Advocate Mr. Gorakh Liman, representing Sadanand Rane, argued that his client had been falsely implicated, emphasizing that nothing was recovered from Rane’s direct possession. He contended that Rane’s arrest was solely based on the statements of co-accused, which are “not admissible in law.” He further argued that since no recovery was made directly from Rane, the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted. Mr. Liman also cited instances where the Hon’ble High Court had granted bail in similar circumstances and mentioned that while Rane had a previous narcotic case, he had already been released on bail in that matter. He assured the court that Rane was ready to abide by any imposed conditions.
Learned APP Mr. P.S. Tawade strongly opposed the application, reiterating the co-accused’s statements identifying Rane as the supplier and highlighting the significant quantity and value of the seized contraband. He stressed Rane’s alleged role in supplying contraband from Ahmedabad and his status as a habitual offender.
Court’s Decision and Rationale
Special Judge V.V. Vidwans considered the arguments from both sides and the material on record. The court’s decision hinged on two key findings:
- No Direct Recovery: The court explicitly stated, “It is clear from prima facie material on record that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicant/accused.”
- Inadmissibility of Co-accused Statements: The judge affirmed that Rane had been arrested “on the say of accused nos.1 and 2” and that “Statement of co-accused is not admissible in law.”
Given these findings, the court concluded that the “stringent provisions of Sec.37 of the Act are not applicable.” While acknowledging the pendency of a previous NDPS case against Rane, the court held that “Mere pendency of previous cases under NDPS Act cannot be a sufficient circumstance to refuse bail to the accused.”
The judge determined that imposing strict conditions would sufficiently serve the prosecution’s purpose.
Bail Conditions
Accordingly, NDPS Bail Application No. 875 of 2018 was allowed. Sadanand Waman Rane is to be released on bail subject to the following conditions:
- He must execute a personal recognizance bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one or two local sureties for the same amount.
- He must attend the Investigating Officer at DCB CID, Unit-12, once a fortnight on the 1st and 3rd Saturday of the month between 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. until the charge-sheet is filed. If the IO is absent, he should report to the PSO Incharge.
- He shall not tamper with prosecution witnesses/evidence in any manner and must cooperate in the investigation.
- He must furnish his cell/landline number and those of two nearest relatives or friends, preferably residing in Mumbai.
- He must produce proof of identity and residence at Mumbai at the time of executing the bail bond.
- He shall not commit similar offenses while on bail.
The order explicitly stated that a breach of any of these conditions would entail the cancellation of bail.
The Bail Application No. 875/18 stands disposed of. The order was signed on December 12, 2018, and uploaded on December 13, 2018.