Mumbai, November 13, 2018 – Irfan Yasin Shaikh, 36, an accused in a case involving the seizure of 2 kilograms of the controlled substance Pseudo-Ephedrine, had his bail application rejected today by the Special Judge for NDPS Cases at Greater Mumbai. His Honour Judge M. S. Mungale (C.R. No. 44) denied the bail, primarily citing the accused’s inability to provide a verified residential address.
Shaikh, currently in judicial custody, was arrested on October 15, 2018, by the Anti-Narcotics Cell (ANC), Ghatkopar Unit, under C.R. No. 46/2018. He is accused of an offense under Section 9(A) punishable under Section 25(A) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, which deals with the contravention of provisions related to controlled substances.
Prosecution’s Case
As per the prosecution, on October 15, 2018, a raid was conducted at Lal Bahadur Shastri Road, opposite a petrol pump in Kurla (West), Mumbai. During this operation, 2 kilograms of Pseudo-Ephedrine, a controlled substance, were seized from Shaikh’s possession.
Arguments Presented
Mr. Gorakh Liman, the learned advocate for Irfan Yasin Shaikh, argued that there was no bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act for granting bail, as the seized substance was a controlled substance and not a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance directly falling under the stringent provisions related to commercial quantities of illicit drugs. He also claimed that the accused was a permanent resident of Mumbai at the address mentioned in the application.
However, Mr. B. G. Rajput, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) for the State, strongly opposed the bail. He contended that Shaikh had initially provided an address at 123, Ammu Suleman Building, Nagpada, Mumbai, but investigations revealed he did not reside there. This property was reportedly owned by his mother and leased out to tenants.
The APP further highlighted that during police interrogation, Shaikh provided another address: 196/198, City Tower, Basera, Flat No. 3, 1st floor, Mahatma Phule Peth, Mominpura, Pune. However, this address was also found to be occupied by a different tenant. Finally, Shaikh gave a third address at 747/21, Ramesh Niwas, 2nd floor, Room No. 10, Agarwal Colony, Bhawani Peth, Kamalmala, Pune, where his brother, Imran, was found to reside.
The APP emphasized that since Shaikh had not provided a correct residential address, granting him bail would pose a high risk of him absconding and failing to appear for trial.
Court’s Reasoning for Denial
Judge M. S. Mungale noted that the bail application listed the address as 123, Ammu Suleman Building, Nagpada, Mumbai, but no address proof was annexed. The court also observed that police custody of the applicant had been extended on two occasions specifically to ascertain his correct residential address, supporting the APP’s submission.
The judge stated, “It appears that there is substance in the submission of the learned A.P.P. that the applicant/accused has not provided correct address of his residence.” While acknowledging that there was “no bar under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act” for considering bail, given that the seized substance was a controlled substance, the court ultimately concluded that “if bail is granted to him, it is likely that he may jump the bail and he will not turn to the Court to face the trial.”
Therefore, the court deemed it “not safe to release the applicant/accused on bail.”
Order
The court issued the following order:
- Bail Application No. 787/2018 is rejected.
- The applicant/accused Irfan Yasin Shaikh is at liberty to file a fresh bail application with permanent residential address proof.
- The application stands disposed of accordingly.
This ruling underscores the judiciary’s concern for ensuring the presence of an accused during trial, even when direct bail bars under the NDPS Act may not apply. Providing a verified and stable residential address remains a fundamental requirement for securing bail.