BA.No.943-2024
-1-
NDPS.RA.1348/2024
MHCC020173892024
Presented on
Registered on
Decided on
Duration
: 19-11-2024
: 19-11-2024
: 04-12-2024
: 0 years, 0 months, 15 days
IN THE SPECIAL COURT FOR NARCOTIC DRUGS AND
PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985, AT GREATER BOMBAY
BAIL APPLICATION (NDPS) NO.943 OF 2024
IN
NDPS REMAND APPLICATION NO.1348 OF 2024
1. Mohammad Farhad Saleem Ahmed Gaur
Age-31 years, Occ.-Business,
Residing at Teliwala Padali Gujjar, near
Faijul Ulum Rashidiya Masjid, Tal-Roorkee,
Dist-Haridwar, Uttarakhand, India.
2. Mohammad Jahangir Saleem Ahmed Gaur
Age-38 years, Occ-Business,
Residing at Teliwala Padali Gujjar, near
Faijul Ulum Rashidiya Masjid, Tal-Roorkee,
Dist-Haridwar, Uttarakhand, India.

.. Applicant/Accused
Nos.1 and 2.

VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra
Through Borivali Police Station,
vide CR.No.774 of 2024.

.. Respondent.

Ld. Advocate Shri Amol Thombre for the Applicant/Accused Nos.1 and
2.
Ld. APP Shri R.V. Tiwari for the State/Respondent.

BA.No.943-2024
-2-
NDPS.RA.1348/2024
CORAM : H.H. THE SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS)
S. E. Bangar (Court Room No.42)
th
DATE : 4 December, 2024.
ORDER
1]
Background:
The applicants, Mohammad Farhad and Mohammad Jahangir,
are seeking regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), read with Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
They are accused under Sections 8(c), 21(b), and 29 of the NDPS Act,
1985, in connection with the seizure of 33 grams and 28 grams of
heroin. The applicants were arrested based on a disclosure statement
by accused no. 1, a juvenile named Raja Wajid Jhoja.
2]
Contentions of the Applicants:
i.

Innocence: Applicants assert they have been falsely implicated,
emphasizing that they are daily wage workers residing in Uttarakhand.
ii.

Procedural Violations: The applicants allege violations of
mandatory provisions under Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act.
iii.

Intermediate Quantity: The contraband recovered qualifies as
intermediate, not invoking the stringent rigors of Section 37.
iv.

Family Dependence: Applicants claim to be the sole earners for
their families.
v.

No Criminal Antecedents: The applicants highlight their clean
criminal record.
3]
Contentions of the Prosecution:
i.

Conspiracy: The applicants supplied heroin to accused no. 1,
exploiting a minor for drug trafficking.

BA.No.943-2024
ii.

-3-
NDPS.RA.1348/2024
Substantial Evidence: Seizures of heroin from accused no. 1 and
the applicants’ residence establish their direct involvement.
iii.

Risk of Absconding:
The applicants are residents of another
state, raising concerns about their availability during trial.
iv.

Pending Investigation:
The role of a supplier, identified as
“Alim,” is yet to be investigated.
4]
Legal Considerations:
1.

Presumption of Culpable Mental State (Section 35 of the NDPS
Act):
The burden lies on the accused to rebut the presumption of
intent under this provision.
2.

Bail under Section 37 of NDPS Act:
The applicants must
demonstrate reasonable grounds for believing they are not guilty and
are unlikely to commit offenses on bail.
3.

Mandatory
Compliance:
Non-compliance
with
procedural
safeguards under Sections 42 and 50 can render the recovery
inadmissible (State of Punjab vs. Baldev Singh (1999) SC).
4. Intermediate Quantity:
While the recovered contraband is
intermediate, the applicants’ role in trafficking and conspiracy cannot
be overlooked.
5]
Analysis:
i.

Recovery and Involvement: The recovery of contraband from the
residence and the applicants’ connection with accused no. 1 through
CDR analysis prima facie indicates their involvement.
ii.

Violation of Procedures: The applicants have alleged procedural
lapses, but these require detailed adjudication during trial.

BA.No.943-2024
iii.

-4-
NDPS.RA.1348/2024
Presumption under Section 35: The applicants have not
presented substantial evidence to rebut the statutory presumption of
culpable mental state.
iv.

Exploitation of a Minor: The use of a juvenile in drug trafficking
aggravates the severity of the offense.
6]
Decisions Cited:
a)
State of Punjab vs. Baldev Singh [(1999) 6 SCC 172] –
Emphasized strict compliance with procedural safeguards.
b)
Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu [(2020) 4 SCC 1] –
Highlighted inadmissibility of confessions under Section 67 of the
NDPS Act unless corroborated.
c)
Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) SCC – Discussed balancing
fundamental rights and societal interests in granting bail.
7]
Findings:
Given the severity of the allegations, the quantity of heroin
recovered, and the use of a minor in the trafficking chain, this Court is
not inclined to exercise its discretion in granting bail. The procedural
violations alleged by the applicants do not outweigh the gravity of the
offence and their potential role in a larger conspiracy.

Hence, the
following order is passed:
Order
1.

Bail Application No.943 of 2024 filed by applicant/accused No.1
Mohammad Farhad Saleem Ahmed Gaur and applicant/accused No.2
BA.No.943-2024
-5-
NDPS.RA.1348/2024
Mohammad Jahangir Saleem Ahmed Gaur stands rejected.
2.

Bail Application No.943 of 2024 in NDPS Remand Application
No.1348 of 2024 is hereby disposed of.
SHASHIKANT
EKNATHRAO
BANGAR
Date : 4.12.2024
Dictated on
Transcribed on
HHJ signed on
Digitally signed
by SHASHIKANT
EKNATHRAO
BANGAR
Date: 2024.12.09
11:27:41 +0530
(S.E. Bangar)
NDPS Special Judge &
Additional Session Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay.
: 4.12.2024
: 7.12.2024
: 7.12.2024
BA.No.943-2024
-6-
NDPS.RA.1348/2024
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
9.12.2024/11.26 a.m.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
(Mrs. Pradnya S. Naik)
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/ 4.12.2024
ORDER
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O. on
7.12.2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on
9.12.2024