On May 6, 2024, the Special Court for Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), at Greater Bombay, delivered an oral order granting bail to Ramzanbee Shamsuddin Shaikh (Accused No. 3), who was implicated in a case of alleged drug trafficking. Additional Sessions Judge K.P. Kshirsagar allowed Criminal Bail Application No. 1094 of 2024, filed in connection with C.R. No. 277/2024 at R.C.F. Police Station. The applicant was charged under Section 8(c) read with Section 21(b) and Section 29 of the NDPS Act (conspiracy). The court’s decision was based on the fact that the quantity of Heroin recovered was intermediate, thereby making the stringent conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act inapplicable, and crucially, the uncertainty surrounding the chemical nature of other substances recovered.

The Prosecution’s Allegations

The case against the applicant, Ramzanbee Shamsuddin Shaikh, stemmed from the apprehension of co-accused No. 1, Najmul Mehboob Shaikh, on April 18, 2024, from whom 17 grams of Heroin was allegedly recovered. This quantity falls within the intermediate quantity range under the NDPS Act.

Crucially, co-accused No. 1 allegedly disclosed during the investigation that he, along with his father-in-law (co-accused No. 2, Ganesh Sanmugam Naidu) and his mother-in-law (the applicant, Ramzanbee), used to sell contraband substances. This led the police to the house of the co-accused No. 2 and the applicant, where they recovered 252 glass bottles containing some solution and a drum containing 40 Kg of solution. The prosecution, represented by Ld. APP Mr. Rajput, argued that the co-accused were relatives, suggesting a positive material of conspiracy and that the investigation was still pending, particularly regarding the recovered solution, which could be hampered if bail was granted.

Defense Arguments and the Court’s Crucial Observations

The defense, led by Ld. Adv. Mr. Meshram, argued that the total quantity of Heroin (17 grams) was an intermediate quantity, thus Section 37’s rigours were not applicable. They highlighted that nothing was recovered directly from the applicant and that the substance recovered from the co-accused’s house (the bottles and drum solution) did not clearly fall within the purview of the NDPS Act. The defense also pointed out that the applicant was a resident of Mumbai and that her being in custody since April 20, 2024, with no further recovery pending from her, meant the investigation concerning her role was almost completed. While the defense acknowledged that the applicant had some criminal antecedents under the IPC, they correctly asserted that this fact alone is not a sufficient ground for rejecting bail in the current case.

The court accepted the defense’s key legal arguments. The order explicitly noted that the quantity of contraband recovered was an intermediate quantity, making the bar of Section 37 inapplicable. More significantly, the court observed: “Admittedly, the prosecution is not clear as to what is the solution recovered from the house of the co-accused No.2… It cannot be presumed to be a narcotics drugs or psychotropic substance at this stage.” The uncertainty about the nature of the large quantity of solution recovered undermined the prosecution’s claim for continued detention based on the gravity of the offense. The court affirmed that mere IPC antecedents are not an absolute ground for rejecting bail, and the primary objective is to secure the accused’s attendance at trial.

Conditions for Release

Finding justifiable grounds for release and concluding that the applicant’s detention was no longer necessary for a fair investigation, the court allowed the bail application. The applicant, Ramzanbee Shamsuddin Shaikh, was ordered to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount.

The court imposed standard conditions to safeguard the trial process:

• The applicant must co-operate with the Investigating Officer and make herself available for interrogation.
• She must not tamper with prosecution evidence or influence witnesses.
• She must co-operate in the early disposal of the trial.
• She must not commit any criminal offence while on bail.

This ruling reinforces the principle that when the high threshold of commercial quantity under the NDPS Act is not met, and the investigation against the applicant is substantially complete, the accused is entitled to the fundamental right of personal liberty.