1
BA 893/18
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR N.D.P.S CASES FOR
GREATER BOMBAY AT MUMBAI
NDPS BAIL APPLICATION NO.893/2018
IN
N.D.P.S. R.A. No. 1120/2018
1. Mohd. Oves Abdul Khalid Ansari
2. Touseef Naseem Khan
..Applicants/A­1 & 2
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra,
(at the instance ANC, Ghatkopar Unit)
…Respondents
Appearances:­
Ld. Advocate Ms Shabnam Shaikh for applicants/accused.
Ld. APP Mr. P.S Tawade for Respondent/State.
Coram :H.H.J The Special Judge (NDPS)
Shri. V.V. Vidwans (CR No.42).
Date : 13.12.2018.
ORAL ORDER
1.

This is an application for regular bail filed on behalf of
applicants/ accused nos. 1 and 2 u/s. 439 of Cr.P.C. Say of IO and Ld.
APP for the State was called and it is submitted on record vide Exh.2.
Seen and considered the say.
2.

I have heard oral submissions of Ld. Adv. Ms. Shaikh for
the accused and Ld. APP Mr. Tawade for the State.
3.

It is submitted on behalf of accused that, on 10.11.2018, at
around 6.50 pm, applicant/ accused nos.1 and 2 were arrested by ANC
while they were on search and patrolling duty to find out accused
persons involved in illicit sale of contraband for allegedly committing
2
BA 893/18
offences under NDPS Act. In presence of panch witnesses, search and
seizure was carried out and during the search, 130 bottles of toxic
substance phosphate contained in syrup were recovered from the
possession of accused no.1 and 120 bottles of codeine were recovered
from applicant/ accused no.2. Similarly from the taxi of applicant/
accused nos. 1 and 2 bearing No. MH01 AT 2725, total 1180 bottles of
codeine phosphate were recovered. Approximate value of total seized
contraband along with taxi is estimated around Rs.4,86,000/­.
4.

It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the applicants that, the
applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. Recovery has been
already made by the police and thus custodial interrogation is not
required. The accused are suffering from medical ailments and are
under treatment as per documents filed along with the application vide
Exh.A. Applicants/ accused are permanent residents of Mumbai and
ready to abide by the conditions if any imposed by this Court. ID proof
and residence proof in the form of Adhar card, ration card, PAN card
etc. of applicants/ accused is filed on record vide Exh.B. There are no
criminal antecedents of the accused and they are not likely to abscond,
therefore the application may be allowed.
5.

Per contra, Ld. APP has opposed the application and relied
on the say at Exh.2 and submitted that, the quantity of seized
contraband from the possession of accused is substantial one.
Applicants are deeply involved in the activities involving offences under
NDPS Act. There is a racket of such persons and investigation is in
progress to find from whom the applicants have procured the seized
contraband substance. The applicants are not having permanent address
in Mumbai. The applicants/ accused no.1 is stated to be residing on
3
BA 893/18
footpath near Hindustan Mill but address is not reliable. Similarly,
applicant/ accused no.2 is residing on rent in the room of one Dashrath
Narwade. Under the above circumstances, if bail is granted to the
applicants they are likely to abscond and will not be available for trial.
Under the above circumstances the application is liable to be rejected.
6.

I have gone through the remand papers and prima facie
material on record and find that, ANC has recovered 130 bottles of
mixture containing phosphate from accused no.1 and 120 bottles
containing mixture of codeine phosphate. Further recovery has been
made from a taxi in possession of accused/ applicants bearing no.
MH01 AT 2725 and 1180 bottles of codeine phosphate have been
recovered. Thus, total quantity of bottles comes to around 1430.
Considering the percentage of the codeine phosphate in the mixture and
individual recovery from the possession of applicant/ accused nos. 1
and 2, same is non­commercial quantity.

Therefore, stringent
provisions of Sec.37 of the Act are not applicable. Ld. APP submitted
that entire quantity should be taken into account at the stage of bail
application. But it is well settled as per authority of Hon’ble Bombay
High Court reported in the case of Sangeeta Y. Gaikwad V/s. The
State of Maharashtra (Cri. Application No.2597/2006) decided on
3.8.2006) that, individual recovery of accused persons will have to be
taken into account while deciding bail application. It appears that, the
applicants/ accused nos.1 and 2 are not having any permanent
residential address in Mumbai. Applicant/ accused no.1 is residing near
Hindustan Mill, Hut no.8, Opp. Barkha High School, Mumbai; while
accused no.2 is residing in a room of one Dashrath Narwade on rental
basis in front of municipal school, Vikroli parksite, Mumbai, at the given
address. Under the above circumstances, I am of the opinion that, if the
4
BA 893/18
application is allowed subject to stringent conditions for securing
presence of the applicants, that will serve the purpose of the
prosecution. Hence following order:­
ORDER
1.

Bail Application No.893 of 2018 is hereby allowed.

2.

Applicant/ accused no.1 Mohd. Oves Abdul Khalid
Ansari and applicant/ accused no.2 Touseef Naseem
Khan shall be released on their executing P.R.Bond of
Rs.50,000/­ (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) each with one
or two sureties each, one of which should be local
surety, to the above extent.

3.

The applicants/accused to attend the I.O at ANC
Ghatkopar Unit for the purpose of investigation once
in a fortnight on 1st and 3rd Saturday of the month
between 11.00 am to 2.00 pm till filing of the charge­
sheet. If I.O is absent, then they should give
attendance to the PSO Incharge.

4.

The applicants/ accused shall not tamper with
prosecution witnesses/evidence in any manner and
co­operate in the investigation.

5.

The applicants/ accused shall furnish their cell/
landline numbers and also of their two nearest
relatives or their two friends each, preferably residing
in Mumbai.

6.

The applicants/accused shall produce the proof of
5
BA 893/18
their identity and proof of residence at Mumbai at
the time of executing the bail bonds.
7.

The applicants/ accused shall not commit similar
offence while on bail.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions by
the applicant/accused nos.1 and 2, it would entail
cancellation of bail.
Bail
Appln.

No.893/18
stands
disposed
of
accordingly.

Date:­ 13.12.2018
Dictated on: 13.12.2018
Transcribed on: 13.12.2018
HHJ signed on: 14.12.2018
(V.V. Vidwans)
N.D.P.S Special Judge
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay (CR 42).

“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ ORDER.
UPLOADED ON : 17.12.2018
TIME: 5.07 pm
(NITIN V. UBALE)
SELECTION GR. STENOGRAPHER.

Name of the judge (with Court Room No.)

Shri V.V. Vidwans, Spl. Judge & Addl. Sessions
Judge (C.R. 42)
Date of pronouncement of Judgment/ Order
13.12.2018
Judgment/ order signed by P.O on
14.12.2018
Judgment/ order uploaded on
17.12.2018