Mumbai, Maharashtra – November 23, 2023 – The Special Court for Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Greater Bombay, presided over by Additional Sessions Judge K.P. Kshirsagar (C.R.43), has rejected the bail application of Vinod Rambachan Prajapati (35). Prajapati was arrested in C.R. No. 69/2023 registered by ANC Azad Maidan Unit, Mumbai, for offenses under sections 8(c), 21(c), 22(c), and 29 of the NDPS Act, and sections 465, 468, 471, and 473 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Case Details:
According to the prosecution, 4300 bottles of Codeine Phosphate & Chlorpheniramine Maleate syrup (DASLIN CD+ of 100 ml) were recovered from co-accused No. 1, Umar Nadeem Mohamed Madni Siddiqui. Co-accused No. 1 disclosed that these bottles were supplied to him by co-accused No. 2, Kunjal Bhagwan Viswakarma. From co-accused No. 2, an additional 4200 bottles of the same syrup and 900 tablets of Nitrazepam Tablets IP Nitravet-10 were recovered.
Co-accused No. 2, Kunjal Bhagwan Viswakarma, in turn, disclosed that he procured the contraband from co-accused No. 4, Sandeep Prajapati. The investigation further revealed that Vinod Rambachan Prajapati (the present applicant), in collusion with co-accused No. 4, allegedly prepared forged stamps of doctors and used these to create forged demand letters to obtain the Codeine Phosphate syrup bottles from In Life Distributor Private Limited. The prosecution states that 16 forged stamps of doctors were recovered from Vinod Prajapati’s house.
Arguments for Bail:
Learned Advocate Mr. Sunny Chettiar, representing Vinod Rambachan Prajapati, argued that this was the applicant’s first bail application and no other similar application was pending. He emphasized that nothing was recovered directly from the applicant/accused. Mr. Chettiar contended that there was “no positive evidence/material on record which indicates nexus between the applicant/accused and the co-accused or other co-accused.” He stated that Prajapati is a resident of Mumbai and is willing to abide by all court-imposed conditions.
Prosecution’s Opposition:
Learned APP Mr. Rajput strongly opposed the bail. He highlighted that a commercial quantity of contraband was recovered from co-accused Nos. 1 and 2. He detailed the chain of supply as revealed through interrogations, leading to the applicant and co-accused No. 4. Mr. Rajput asserted that there was “positive material of conspiracy” between the applicant and co-accused No. 4, including the recovery of 16 forged stamps of doctors from the applicant’s house. This, he argued, indicates the applicant’s direct involvement in drug trafficking. Mr. Rajput contended that the applicant is a “drug peddler” and his release at this stage would hamper the ongoing investigation.
Court’s Reasoning and Decision:
Additional Sessions Judge K.P. Kshirsagar meticulously reviewed the application and material on record. The court acknowledged that the recovered quantity from co-accused Nos. 1 and 2 was a commercial quantity, thereby invoking the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
The Judge noted that prima facie appreciation of the material indicated that the applicant was “a drug peddler and involved in the sale of the contraband.” Crucially, the court found that the evidence suggested the applicant and co-accused No. 4 “used to prepare forged demand letters of the doctors for getting the contraband.” The recovery of 16 forged stamps of doctors from the applicant’s house was deemed “positive material” establishing a nexus and conspiracy between the applicant and the co-accused in drug trafficking.
The court explicitly stated that there was “no substance in the contention of the applicant/accused that, there is no positive material on record to show that, applicant/accused and the co-accused No.1 and 4 have any nexus and they have not hatched any conspiracy.”
Furthermore, the court observed that the investigation regarding the applicant was “not completed.” It expressed concern that if released, the applicant “may tamper the prosecution witnesses or influence the witnesses or may involve in commission of such offences.” The court stressed that a “free, fair and full investigation” would likely be prejudiced if the applicant was released, and therefore, “necessity for the further detention of the applicant/accused for facilitating further investigation” existed.
The Judge concluded that the applicant had “played active role” and failed to demonstrate prima facie that he was not involved in the crime. The court held that “release of the applicant/accused at this stage is likely to be prejudicial to the interest of the society at large” and that a “liberal approach in grant of bail in such kind of offences under NDPS Act is also uncalled.”
Order:
Based on these findings, NDPS Bail Application No. 920/2023 was rejected, and the application was disposed of accordingly.