The Special Court for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances () Act in Greater Bombay has granted regular bail to Sheela Shirish Parkar and Heena Shamim Shaikh, two women arrested for the alleged possession of Ganja. The order, delivered swiftly on April 12, 2024, in Criminal Bail Application No. 932 of 2024, underscores a fundamental principle in Act cases: the small quantity of the recovered contraband exempts the accused from the severe bar on bail under Section 37 of the Act. This crucial legal distinction often determines the outcome of bail applications in drug cases where the quantity falls below the specified thresholds.
The Allegations and the Significance of Small Quantity
The applicants, Sheela Shirish Parkar (Accused No. 1) and Heena Shamim Shaikh (Accused No. 2), were charged under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(a) and Section 29 (Criminal Conspiracy) of the Act, 1985, following the registration of No. 41/2024 at V.P. Road Police Station. The prosecution alleged that on April 5, 2024, during a search, 150 grams of Ganja was recovered from the conscious possession of each applicant, totaling 300 grams collectively. The offence under Section 20(a), pertaining to cultivation or possession of cannabis, carries a maximum punishment of one year and a fine of up to .
The key to the defence argument, presented by Ld. Advocate Mr. Shailesh Kharat, was the quantity of the contraband. The defence successfully contended that the total recovered amount (300 grams) constituted a small quantity under the Act, thereby rendering the rigours of Section 37 inapplicable. This section imposes a strict double test—the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail—which is only mandatory for offences involving commercial quantity. With Section 37 removed from consideration, the bail application was evaluated under the less restrictive provisions of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (.).
Judicial Review and Assessment of Continued Detention
The prosecution, represented by Ld. Mr. Rajput, acknowledged that the recovered quantity was small and that Section 37 was not applicable. However, the opposed the bail application on the grounds that the person from whom the applicants procured the Ganja was yet to be arrested, suggesting the investigation was incomplete, and expressing the fear that the applicants might similar offences if released.
The Court, presided over by Addl. Sessions Judge K.P. Kshirsagar, meticulously addressed these concerns. Firstly, the Court reiterated that the small quantity meant Section 37 did not apply. Secondly, it observed that the applicants had been in custody since April 5, 2024, and crucially, determined that “nothing is to be recovered from the applicants/accused.” This finding strongly implied that the custodial part of the investigation relating to the two applicants was essentially concluded. Furthermore, the Court noted that the prosecution had not attributed any criminal antecedents to either Sheela Parkar or Heena Shaikh, minimizing the possibility that they would the offence while on bail.
Upholding the Principle of Personal Liberty
The Court’s order emphasized the paramount importance of personal liberty as a fundamental right. It asserted that the purpose of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at trial, not to be punitive or preventive, especially when the case does not involve the severe statutory limitations of commercial quantity. The Court found no “just ground which necessitates further detention” and was satisfied that the applicants, being permanent residents of Mumbai and Palghar, were likely to cooperate and be secured for trial, particularly with appropriate conditions imposed.
The Court, therefore, allowed the application, ordering the release of Sheela Shirish Parkar and Heena Shamim Shaikh. They were each directed to execute a Personal Bond of with one or more sureties in the like amount. The conditions imposed were standard but firm: they must co-operate with the Investigating Officer, not tamper with prosecution evidence or influence witnesses, and not commit any criminal offence while on bail. This swift judgment, delivered just two days after the application was registered, highlights the efficiency and adherence to fundamental rights demonstrated by the Special Court when the threshold for enhanced punishment is not met.