In a significant ruling on April 24, 2024, the Special Court for Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), at Greater Bombay, delivered an order granting bail to an applicant accused of possessing Mephedrone. Criminal Bail Application No. 924 of 2024, filed by Mohd. Owes Yusuf Shaikh, was allowed by Additional Sessions Judge K.P. Kshirsagar, in connection with C.R. No. 204/2024 registered at Byculla Police Station. The accused was booked under Section 8(c) read with Section 22(b) of the NDPS Act. The court’s decision was primarily grounded in the fact that the quantity of the recovered contraband, 25 grams of Mephedrone, falls under the intermediate quantity category, thereby rendering the stringent conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act inapplicable. This case serves as a crucial reminder of the legal distinction between commercial, intermediate, and small quantities in drug offenses and its direct impact on the grant of bail.
The prosecution’s case against the applicant, Mohd. Owes Yusuf Shaikh, was based on an alleged recovery made on April 2, 2024, where 25 grams of Mephedrone (also known as MD or Meow Meow) was purportedly found in his possession. The offense under Section 22(b) of the NDPS Act prescribes punishment for offenses involving an intermediate quantity of a psychotropic substance, with a term of imprisonment that may extend up to 10 years and a fine of up to Rs. One lakh. The learned APP argued against the bail, asserting that the recovered Mephedrone was for the purpose of sale, which prima facie suggested the applicant was a drug peddler. The prosecution further contended that releasing the young accused at this preliminary stage would hamper the investigation, which was yet to be fully completed.
The defense, led by Advocate Anil Bansode, countered the prosecution’s objections by emphasizing several key factors favorable to the applicant. The primary argument was the legal point concerning the quantity of the seized drug. Since 25 grams of Mephedrone is classified as an intermediate quantity under the NDPS Act, the rigours of Section 37 are not attracted. Section 37 imposes strict limitations on the power of the court to grant bail where the offense involves a commercial quantity, requiring the court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offense while on bail—a significantly high threshold that was circumvented in this matter. The defense also pointed out that the applicant, a 23-year-old resident of Mumbai, had no criminal antecedents and had been in custody since the date of his arrest. They contended that nothing further remained to be recovered from him, suggesting that the investigation was almost completed concerning his personal involvement.
The court, after perusing the application, the prosecution’s reply, and all material on record, conducted a prima facie appreciation of the evidence. It was explicitly noted in the order that the recovered quantity was indeed an intermediate quantity, thereby making Section 37 inapplicable. Without the hurdle of Section 37, the court proceeded to evaluate the bail plea on general principles of criminal jurisprudence. The court underscored the paramount value of personal liberty, one of the most precious fundamental rights, and reaffirmed that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial, and not to act as a punitive or preventive measure. Considering that the accused had already co-operated during the investigation, was a resident of Mumbai, and his custody was no longer required for facilitating a full and fair investigation, the court was satisfied that his presence at the trial could be secured even if he was released on bail.
Consequently, the Special Judge ruled that there were justifiable grounds for releasing the applicant on bail. The court allowed the application and directed the applicant, Mohd. Owes Yusuf Shaikh, to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount. To safeguard the interests of the prosecution and the integrity of the judicial process, the court imposed standard but mandatory conditions. These included the requirements that the applicant must co-operate with the Investigating Officer as and when required, not tamper with prosecution evidence or influence witnesses, co-operate in the early disposal of the trial, and not commit any criminal offense while on bail. This decision highlights the courts’ commitment to upholding the constitutional presumption of innocence, ensuring that detention is not prolonged unnecessarily, especially when the legal threshold for bail under the NDPS Act is not met.