NDPS RA 1206/2018
1
BA 915/2018
IN THE SPECIAL COURT FOR NARCOTIC DRUGS AND
PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985, AT GR. BOMBAY
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 915 OF 2018
IN
NDPS REMAND APPLICATION NO. 1206 OF 2018
Salman Anis Shaikh
Age 26 years, R/A Room No.42,
Indira Nagar Zopadpatti, Barma Cell
Railway Line, Umarwadi, Nehru Nagar,
Kurla (E), Mumbai – 70.

… Applicant
/ Accused
Vs.
State of Maharashtra
(Anti Narcotic Cell vide
C.R. No. 64/2018 dated 07/12/2018).

… Respondent.

Appearance:
Ld. Advocate Ms. Zehra Charania 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: 18th DECEMBER, 2018.
ORAL ORDER
This is an application for bail filed by applicant/ accused
Salman Anis Shaikh on account of his arrest by the officers of the Anti
Narcotic Cell, Mumbai for commission of offences punishable u/s. 8(c)
r/w 22, 29 of NDPS Act, 1985.
2.

The
prosecution
case
in
nutshell
reveals
that
on
07/12/2018 the team of ANC, Mumbai, was on patrolling duty and at
NDPS RA 1206/2018
2
BA 915/2018
the given spot applicant/accused along with co­accused Tausif were
found loitering there in a suspicious circumstance and therefore,
immediately two panch witnesses were called and the black plastic bag
possessed by the applicant/accused was checked and was found
containing 15 gm of MD. Similarly, the bag found in the possession of
co­accused Tausif was found containing 17 gm of MD. Thereafter, the
applicant/accused as well as his associate were placed under arrest for
violation of provision of NDPS Act,1985 as above. After cessation of his
police custody, presently applicant/accused is in judicial custody.

3.

The bail is sought on the ground that applicant/accused is
falsely implicated in the crime. It is specifically contended that the
alleged quantity of MD seized from the possession of the present
applicant comes under the category of non­commercial quantity and
therefore, the bar of Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not get attracted.
So, also the applicant/accused is permanent resident of Mumbai and
having deep roots in the society. He has no criminal antecedents. He is
ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court, while releasing
him on the bail. On these grounds it is prayed that applicant/ accused
be enlarged on bail.

4.

The respondent/State contested the petition by filing reply
dated 18/12/2018 as well as on the application itself.

It is mainly
contended that the contraband has been seized from the possession of
the accused by strictly following the provision of NDPS Act.

It is
further contended that the applicant is selling contraband articles and
therefore, if released on bail he may indulge into similar activity in
future. On these grounds it is prayed that the application be rejected.

NDPS RA 1206/2018
5.

3
BA 915/2018
Heard Ld. Advocate Ms. Charania for applicant & the Ld.

APP Mr. Panjwani for the State, at length.
6.

It is submitted by the Ld. Defence Counsel that the quantity
of MD allegedly seized at the instance of applicant/accused is the below
commercial quantity, as per the details reflected in the remand papers
as well as in the reply and therefore, primarily the bar as contemplated
u/s.37 of the NDPS Act, does not attract. The applicant/ accused is
having permanent place of residence as reflected in the remand papers
and therefore, he will not abscond, if released on bail. As such she
requested to release the applicant on bail. Per contra the Ld APP Mr.
Panjwani objected granting of the application on the grounds reflected
in the reply.
7.

I have carefully gone through submissions of both the sides
and record. It can be gathered from the material placed on record that
the applicant is allegedly found having in his possession 15 gm of MD
which is above the small quantity but technically it is intermediate
quantity i.e. non­commercial quantity. Naturally the bar under section
37 of the NDPS Act does not get attracted.
8.

It is equally a matter of record that since his arrest on
07/12/2018 he is in the custody and by this time the investigation in
the matter might have been almost competed, except the collection of
the CA Report from competent authority. Thereby, there is no likelihood
of tampering with the evidence or otherwise. Now nothing is to be
recovered or discovered on pointing out of the applicant. The
conclusion of the trial in the present case would take sufficient long
NDPS RA 1206/2018
4
BA 915/2018
time and it is not desirable to keep the applicant behind the bars till
then. Under these circumstances, his further detention in the judicial
custody appears to be unwarranted.

There is neither allegation nor
record of criminal antecedents to the dis­credit of the applicant. In view
of forgoing discussion, I conclude that application deserves to be
allowed and the interest of prosecution can be secured by imposing
following stringent conditions :
ORDER
1.

Bail
Application
No.

915/2018
in
NDPS
Remand
Application No. 1206/2018 is hereby allowed.
2.

The applicant/accused­ Salman Anis Shaikh, in C.R.

No.64/2018 registered with ANC, Mumbai be released on bail on
his executing P.R. Bond of Rs.75,000/­ (Rs. Seventy Five
Thousand only), with one or two sureties in the like amount.
3.

The applicant/accused shall not directly or indirectly
dissuade any of the prosecution witnesses from deposing in the
Court or tamper with the prosecution evidence in any way.
4.

Bail Application stands disposed off accordingly.

18.12.2018.
Typed on
: 18.12.2018.
Checked on : 18.12.2018.
Signed on
: 18.12.2018.

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

NDPS RA 1206/2018
5
BA 915/2018
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
:
:
20.12.2018, 01.15 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 18.12.2018.

JUDGMENT/ORDER
P.O. on
by 18.12.2018.

signed
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on
20.12.2018.