NDPS RA 916/2018
1
BA 674/2018
IN THE SPECIAL COURT FOR NARCOTIC DRUGS AND
PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985, AT GR. BOMBAY
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 674 OF 2018
IN
NDPS REMAND APPLICATION NO. 916 OF 2018
Nagesh Ashok Pawar.
Age­ 25 years, Occ.: Service,
R/A Hut No. 36. Ramgad Zopadpatti,
Ramgad Rahiwasi Sangh, Opp. Minerva
Compound, Bunder Road, Sewree,
Mumbai – 400 015.

… Applicant
/ Accused
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra, through
(At the instance of Sr. PI, Dongri
Police Station.)

… Respondent.

Appearance:
Ld. Advocate Mr. Rahul Aarote for the applicant/ accused.
Ld. APP Mr. Panjwani for the prosecution.
CORAM: H.H.THE SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS)
SHRI. U. M. MUDHOLKAR
(C.R.NO.43)
DATED: 12th OCTOBER, 2018.
ORAL ORDER
This is an application for bail filed by applicant/accused
Nagesh Ashok Pawar on account of his arrest by the officers of Dongri
Police Station, Mumbai for commission of offences punishable u/s. 8(c)
r/w 20(c) of NDPS Act, 1985.
2.

The
prosecution
case
in
nutshell
reveals
that
on
07/09/2018 the team of Dongri Police Station, was on patrolling duty
NDPS RA 916/2018
2
BA 674/2018
and at the given spot co­accused Ansari was found loitering there in a
suspicious circumstance and therefore, immediately two panch
witnesses were called and during his personal search 233 gms of MD
was found, which came to be seized by following due procedure.
During custodial interrogation, co­accused Ansari disclosed that the
same was supplied to him by the present applicant Nagesh. Therefore,
on 19/09/2018 he was also placed under arrest for violation of
provision of NDPS Act,1985 as above.

After cessation of his police
custody, presently he is in judicial custody.
3.

It is contended that the applicant/accused is falsely implicated in
the present case. It is specifically contended that no recovery of any
incriminating article/substance has been made from his possession.
Whatever recovery is shown to have been made is made from the
possession of co­accused Ashif Ansari.

The incriminating evidence
which is attributed to the present applicant/accused is only the
electronic evidence and the disclosure statement of co­accused Ansari,
which is not sufficient to reject the bail application. He is permanent
resident of Mumbai and will abide by all the conditions, if released on
bail. On these grounds and that of innocence of the applicant, it is
prayed that application be allowed.
4.

The respondent resisted the application by filing reply dated
01/10/2018.

By denying all adverse contentions, it is specifically
contended that the applicant has played a specific role of a supplier of
the contraband and has thus, committed the said offences.

The
electronic evidence prima facie shows complicity of the present
applicant/accused. The seized quantity of substance is commercial one
which attracts the provision under Section 37 of the NDPS Act dis­
NDPS RA 916/2018
3
BA 674/2018
entitling the applicant for bail. On these grounds, it is prayed that the
application be rejected.
5.

Heard Advocate Mr. Rahul Aarote for the applicant/accused and
APP Mr. Panjwani for the State. The submissions of both the sides were
as per the contents of the application and the reply.
6.

I have carefully gone through submissions of both the sides and
record.

Admittedly, there is no recovery of any nature from the
possession of the present applicant.

However, during the course of
investigation the complicity of the applicant has emerged on record.
During custodial interrogation of co­accused Ashif Ansari it was
revealed that the huge quantity of MD was supplied to him by the
present applicant. On the basis of electronic evidence the investigation
officer has confirmed the dealings between applicant/accused and co­
accused in connection with the present case which is certainly, at least
at this stage, an incriminating circumstance against the present
applicant/accused.

It is also revealed that during the custodial
interrogation applicant/accused has not disclosed anything regarding
his supplier or from whom he obtained such a huge quantity of
psychotropic substance. The investigation is not yet completed and is at
crucial stage. There is every possibility that the investigation authority
may trace out
further incriminating evidence against accused/
applicant, which may strengthen the accusation against the present
applicant/accused. Apart from this since the commercial quantity of
MD has been seized, the bar under section 37 of the NDPS Act clearly
gets attracted, which certainly dis­entitles the applicant/accused for
bail, at least at this stage.

NDPS RA 916/2018
7.

4
BA 674/2018
In other words, there is strong prima facie evidence on record
demonstrating culpability of the present applicant in the commission of
serious offences under the provisions of NDPS Act.

Under such
circumstances, his release on bail would certainly be prejudicial not
only to the investigation agency but also the society at large. In view of
this, in the considered view of this court the application deserves to be
rejected. Therefore, in the light of above observations and to meet the
proper ends of justice following order is passed :
ORDER
Bail
Application
Application
No.

674/2018
in
NDPS
Remand
No. 916/2018, filed by the applicant/accused ­ Nagesh
Ashok Pawar is hereby rejected and stands disposed of accordingly.

12.10.2018.
Typed on
: 12.10.2018.
Checked on : 12.10.2018.
Signed on
: 12.10.2018.

(U. M. Mudholkar)
NDPS Special Judge,
Gr. Bombay.

NDPS RA 916/2018
5
BA 674/2018
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
:
:
15.10.2018, 05.00 pm.
Mrs. Supriya. S. Girkar
Name of the Judge (With Court HHJ Shri. U. M. Mudholkar
Room No.)
C.R. No.43
Date
of
Pronouncement
JUDGMENT/ORDER
of 12.10.2018.

JUDGMENT/ORDER
P.O. on
by 12.10.2018.

signed
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on
15.10.2018.