BA.No.955/2024
-1-
NDPS.RA.1333-2024
MHCC020174882024
Presented on
Registered on
Decided on
Duration
: 22-11-2024
: 22-11-2024
: 09-12-2024
: 0 years, 0 months, 17 days
IN THE SPECIAL COURT FOR NARCOTIC DRUGS AND
PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985, AT GREATER BOMBAY
BAIL APPLICATION NO.955 OF 2024
IN
NDPS REMAND APPLICATION NO.1333 OF 2024
Altaf Akhlak Ahmed Khan
Aged about 26 years, Occ.-Business,
R/at: Plot No.13/J/5, Road No.9,
Govandi, Shivaji Nagar, Mumbai-400 043.

.. Applicant/Accused.

VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra
Through Shivaji Nagar Police Station,
vide CR.No.797/2024.

.. Respondent.

Ld. Advocate Ms. Jyoti Shahu for the Applicant/Accused.
Ld. APP Mr. R.V. Tiwari for the State/Respondent.
CORAM : H.H. THE SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS)
S. E. Bangar (Court Room No.42)
th
DATE : 9 December, 2024.
ORDER
1]
Brief Background of the Case
The applicant, Altaf Akhlak Ahmed Khan, seeks bail under
BA.No.955/2024
-2-
NDPS.RA.1333-2024
Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No. 797 of 2024
registered by Shivaji Nagar Police Station for offences under Sections
8(c) and 22(b) of the NDPS Act, 1985.
The applicant has been in judicial custody since his arrest on
09.11.2024.
As per the prosecution, the applicant was involved in the
possession and alleged sale of 6.17 grams of MD (Mephedrone), a
psychotropic substance. It is further alleged that the applicant was in
regular contact with the main accused, Mohsin Khan, and had
purchased MD from him multiple times.
2]
Arguments of the Applicant
i)
Innocence Claimed:
The applicant claims he has been falsely
implicated based on the statements of the co-accused, and there is no
direct evidence linking him to the possession or sale of contraband.
ii)
Family Circumstances: The applicant asserts that he is the sole
breadwinner for his family, which includes aged parents.
iii)
No Recovery from the Applicant: The applicant contends that no
contraband was recovered directly from him, and the case is based
purely on allegations by the co-accused and call data records.
iv)
Cooperation with Investigation:
The applicant undertakes to
cooperate fully with the investigation and assures compliance with any
conditions imposed by the court.
3]
Reply of the Prosecution
i)
Strong Evidence: The prosecution opposes bail, citing strong
evidence of the applicant’s involvement, including statements by the
main accused, call data records, and prior criminal antecedents.
ii)
Ongoing Investigation: The prosecution highlights pending
BA.No.955/2024
-3-
NDPS.RA.1333-2024
investigative steps, including the chemical analysis report of the seized
contraband and the inventory procedure under Section 52A of the
NDPS Act.
iii)
Potential Threats: The prosecution contends that the applicant, if
released, may tamper with evidence, influence witnesses, or continue
to engage in illegal activities.
iv)
Serious Nature of Offence: The prosecution emphasizes that the
offense under the NDPS Act has grave social consequences, especially
regarding the youth.
4]
Points for Determination
The court must decide:
1.

Whether there is a prima facie case against the applicant under
the NDPS Act.

2.

Whether the applicant satisfies the twin conditions under Section
37
3.

of the NDPS Act.

Whether the applicant’s release would prejudice the ongoing
investigation or public interest.

5]
Legal Provisions and Analysis
5.1
Applicability of Section 37 NDPS Act
Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes stringent conditions for bail
in cases involving commercial quantities. While the contraband
recovered in this case (6.17 grams of MD) is an intermediate quantity,
the court must assess whether the applicant meets the following
criteria:
1. Prima facie satisfaction of the court regarding the applicant’s
innocence.
2.

Reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant will not
BA.No.955/2024
-4-
NDPS.RA.1333-2024
commit any offense while on bail.
5.2
Relevant Case Law
1.

State of Kerala v. Rajesh [(2020) 12 SCC 122] :
The Supreme Court reiterated that the conditions under Section
37 NDPS Act must be strictly adhered to, especially where the offense
involves serious allegations of drug trafficking.
2.

Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2021) 4 SCC 1] :
The court held that confessional statements under Section 67 of
the NDPS Act are inadmissible as evidence. This ruling weakens the
prosecution’s case if it relies solely on such statements.
3.

Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari [(2007) 7 SCC 798] :
It was held that bail cannot be granted if there are reasonable
grounds for believing that the accused is guilty of the offense.
4.

Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra
[(2005) 5 SCC 294] :
The court emphasized the importance of balancing individual
liberty and the societal interest while deciding bail.
6]
Findings
i)
Prima Facie Case: Based on the material submitted, including call
data records and statements of the main accused, there exists a prima
facie case against the applicant.
ii)
Pending Investigation: The court notes that critical steps, such as
chemical analysis of the contraband and the inventory procedure under
Section 52A, are incomplete.
iii)
Risk of Recidivism:
Given the applicant’s alleged repeated
purchase of contraband and prior criminal antecedents, there is a
significant risk of the applicant reoffending if released.

BA.No.955/2024
iv)
-5-
NDPS.RA.1333-2024
Social Impact: The offense involves illegal narcotic drugs, which
have far-reaching consequences on society, especially the youth.
7]
Conclusion
In view of the seriousness of the offense, the prima facie evidence
against the applicant, and the stringent conditions under Section 37 of
the NDPS Act, this court finds that the applicant does not meet the
requirements for bail. Granting bail at this stage would prejudice the
ongoing investigation and public interest, hence, the bail application is
rejected. The investigating officer is directed to expedite the pending
investigation, particularly the chemical analysis and compliance with
Section 52A of the NDPS Act. Hence, the following order is passed:
Order
1.

Bail Application No.955 of 2024 filed by applicant/accused Altaf
Akhlak Ahmed Khan is hereby rejected.

2.

Bail Application No.955 of 2024 in NDPS Remand Application
No.1333 of 2024 is disposed of.
SHASHIKANT
EKNATHRAO
BANGAR
Date : 9.12.2024
Dictated on
Transcribed on
HHJ signed on
Digitally signed
by SHASHIKANT
EKNATHRAO
BANGAR
Date: 2024.12.17
17:56:19 +0530
(S.E. Bangar)
NDPS Special Judge &
Additional Session Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay.
: 09.12.2024
: 17.12.2024
: 17.12.2024
BA.No.955/2024
-6-
NDPS.RA.1333-2024
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
17.12.2024/5.55 p.m.

(Mrs. Pradnya S. Naik)
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER (Grade-1)
Name of the Judge (With Court room no.)

Shri S.E. Bangar
(C.R. No.42)
Date of Pronouncement of JUDGMENT/ 9.12.2024
ORDER
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O. on
17.12.2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on
17.12.2024