IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR N.D.P.S. CASES
AT GREATER MUMBAI
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 657 OF 2022
IN
SPL. LAC NO. 104 OF 2022
Pushpa Arunselvam Puniya
Age : 50 yrs.,
R/o : Ambedkar Nagar,
Kastur Park, Borivali,
Mumbai – 400 092.
…Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra
Borivali Police Station
…Respondent
Appearance :Mr. Lala, Adv. for applicant/accused.
Mr. Rajput, APP for respondent/State.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR THE SPECIAL JUDGE
V. V. PATIL (C.R. NO. 44).
DATE
: 25th April, 2022
ORDER
The applicant/accused Pushpa Arunselvam Puniya has moved
present application for bail u/sec. 439 of Cr.P.C., who was arrested on
26.2.2022 by Borivali police Station in Spl. LAC No. 104/2022 for
offence punishable u/sec. 8(c) r/w 20(b) of NDPS Act.
2.

As per the case of the prosecution on 26.2.2022 at about 14.10
hrs. the offices of respondent received specific information that a lady
by name Pushpa Selvam, aged 50-55 yrs., wearing a maxi was going to
sell Ganja to her customers in between 15.00 hrs and 17.00 hrs.
opposite the Telephone Exchange, situated at Simpoli Road, Shivaji
Nagar, Borivali (W), Mumbai. Accordingly, trap was laid and spot was
raided, where applicant/accused matching with the description of the
person named in the information arrived at the spot. Her movements
-2-
were found suspicious, hence she was intercepted. Her search was taken
which resulted in recovery of 515 gms. of Ganja. Same was seized
under panchanama by following requisite procedure and applicant was
placed under arrest.
3.

The present applicant/accused has sought bail on the grounds
that she is innocent and falsely implicated in this case. The contraband
allegedly recovered from applicant falls under small quantity. Hence
Sec. 37 of NDPS Act is not applicable to the applicant. Further more
there is gross violation of Sec. 50(4) of NDPS Act as the norms of
decency applicable for search of woman was violated since search was
conducted by a male officer in presence of other male. Eventually, on
this ground alone, the entire search would
stand vitiated. Further
more, the applicant is permanent resident of Mumbai and is not likely
to abscond. Hence she prayed for releasing her on bail.
4.

Application is opposed by respondent by filing say. It is contended
that investigation is in progress. Applicant is habitual offender. There
are two cases pending against applicant under provisions of NDPS Act.
If accused is released on bail she may not be available for trial and she
may indulge in same kind of offence. Hence application be rejected.
5.

Perused application and say. Heard both sides. Perusal of record
reveals that on the basis of specific information received, when spot was
raided, the applicant was found in possession of 515 gms. of Ganja,
which came to be seized under panchanama. Now, the quantity of
contraband
recovered from the applicant is small quantity and
punishment prescribed to the said offence is up to one year. Hence
stringent provisions of Sec. 37 of NDPS Act are not applicable.

-3-
6.

Prosecution opposed the application on the ground that there are
two cases registered against applicant under provisions of NDPS Act
with Borivali Police Station. She is habitual offender and
she may
indulge in
However,
similar kind of offences, if released on bail.

applicant cannot be denied bail merely because two cases are pending
against her, if otherwise she is entitled to grant of bail. In the present
case, the recovery is already completed and nothing is remained to be
recovered. As stated above, the quantity of contraband recovered from
the applicant falls under category of small quantity and punishment
prescribed for the offence is upto one year and rigors of Sec. 37 of
NDPS Act would not apply.
7.

Further more, applicant has a permanent address in the Mumbai
and she is not likely to abscond. Applicant is ready to abide by any
conditions imposed by the Court. No purpose will be served by keeping
the applicant in the custody. Hence I hold that application deserves to
be allowed and applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Hence I
proceed to pass following order :
ORDER
1. Bail Application no. 657/2022 is hereby allowed.
2. Applicant/accused Pushpa Arunselvam Puniya be released in Spl.
LAC No. 104/2022 on executing P. R. Bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen
Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount.
3. Applicant/accused to attend the Borivali Police Station on every
Thursday between 2.00 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. till filing of charge-sheet.
4. Applicant/accused and her surety shall provide their respective
mobile
numbers
and
correct
address
of
residence
alongwith names of two relatives with their mobile numbers and
addresses.
5. Applicant/accused shall produce the proof of her identity and
proof of residence at the time of executing the bail bond.

-4-
6.
Applicant/accused
shall
not
tamper
with
prosecution
witnesses/evidence in any manner and co-operate in early disposal of
trial.
7. Applicant/accused shall not commit similar offence while on
bail.
8. Ld. Advocate for applicant/accused prayed for allowing
provisional cash bail for period of eight weeks. Hence, permission
granted to furnish provisional cash bail of Rs. 15,000/- for period of
eight weeks.
9. Accordingly, Bail Application no. 657/2022 is disposed off.

(V. V. PATIL)
Special Judge (N.D.P.S.),
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Mumbai.

Date : 25.04.2022
Dictated on
Transcribed on
Signed on
: 25.04.2022
: 25.04.2022
: 25.04.2022
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGEMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE
26.4.2022
TIME
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
11.00 a.m.

Mrs. S. W. Tuscano
Name of the Judge
HHJ Shri V. V. Patil
(CR No.44)
Date of Pronouncement of
Judgment/Order.
Judgment/order signed by P.O on
Judgment/order uploaded on
25.04.2022
25.04.2022
26.04.2022