The Special Court for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act in Greater Bombay recently granted regular bail to Sadique Maheshar Qureshi, an accused in a case involving the seizure of Mephedrone. The order, dated April 29, 2024, in Criminal Bail Application No. 1003 of 2024, underscores a critical distinction in jurisprudence: the intermediate quantity of the recovered contraband exempts the accused from the stringent conditions of Section 37 of the Act, thereby paving the way for the grant of liberty. This judgment offers essential clarity for legal professionals navigating drug cases where the recovered quantity falls between small and commercial thresholds.

The Charges and the Intermediate Quantity Threshold

The applicant, Sadique Maheshar Qureshi, was arrested and charged under Section 8(c) read with Section 22(b) of the Act, 1985, following the registration of No. 166/2024 at R.A.K. Marg Police Station, Mumbai. The prosecution alleged that during patrolling on April 4, 2024, the applicant was found in a suspicious condition, and a subsequent search resulted in the recovery of 22 grams of Mephedrone. The penalty for this offence can extend up to ten years’ imprisonment and a fine of up to lakh. The core legal argument put forth by the defence, and ultimately upheld by the Court, was that the recovered quantity of grams is considered an intermediate quantity, not a commercial quantity. This distinction is paramount in cases because the rigours of Section 37 of the Act—which mandates that 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—are only applicable when the recovered contraband is of commercial quantity. Since Section 37 did not apply here, the bail application was to be considered under the general provisions of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (.).

Analysis of Detention Necessity and Prima Facie Evidence

The prosecution, represented by Ld. Mr. P.J. Rajput, strongly opposed the bail plea. The argued that the offence was of a serious nature and that investigation revealed the applicant was possessing the for the purpose of sale. Furthermore, they expressed the apprehension that the applicant might continue to commit similar offences if released and that the investigation was “yet not completed.” However, the Court, presided over by Addl. Sessions Judge K.P. Kshirsagar, meticulously scrutinised these grounds against the fundamental rights of the accused.

The Court observed that the applicant had been in custody since April 5, 2024, and crucially, determined that “nothing is to be recovered from him,” concluding that the investigation in respect of the applicant was “almost completed.” This finding significantly weakened the prosecution’s argument for continued detention, as the purpose of incarceration—facilitating recovery and investigation—had been substantially served. Moreover, the Court found no material on record, particularly from the prosecution’s reply, to show that the applicant possessed any criminal antecedents of a similar nature. The absence of a prior record and the near-completion of the investigation collectively created a legal environment where further detention was not deemed necessary.

Upholding Personal Liberty and Rule of Bail

The Court’s order firmly reiterated that “Personal liberty is most precious of all fundamental rights” and that the object of bail is to secure the accused’s attendance at trial, not to be punitive or preventive in nature. With the rigour of Section 37 removed due to the intermediate quantity, the Court’s primary focus shifted to securing the applicant’s presence and ensuring he would not interfere with the judicial process.

The Court was satisfied that the applicant had during the investigation and had undertaken to during the trial. Based on a prima facie appreciation of the material on record, the judge concluded that the applicant’s presence was “likely to be secured even if he is released on bail.” Furthermore, the Court assessed the potential prejudice to the fair investigation or the interest of society and found that the release of the accused at this stage was “not likely to be prejudicial.” Consequently, finding justifiable grounds, the Court allowed the application. The accused, Sadique Maheshar Qureshi, was ordered to be released on a Personal Bond of with one or more sureties in the like amount, subject to strict conditions designed to safeguard the prosecution’s interests, including non-tampering with evidence and non-commission of any further criminal offence. This ruling stands as a testament to the fact that unless specifically barred by the Act’s severe conditions for commercial quantity, the principle of personal liberty and the rule of bail must prevail.