Mumbai, November 22, 2023 – The Special Court for Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Greater Bombay, today rejected the bail application of Anwar Afsar Sayyed, 42, an alleged drug peddler, in connection with a case involving the recovery of Mephedrone (MD). Additional Sessions Judge K.P. Kshirsagar, presiding over Courtroom No. 43, denied Sayyed’s plea, citing the serious nature of the offense, his alleged active role, and the ongoing investigation.
Sayyed, a resident of Gandhi Nagar, Ramjanki Mandir, Near Kapupada Pipeline, Mumbai, had sought bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Spl. LAC/C.R. No. 787/2023, registered at Sakinaka Police Station, Mumbai. He is accused of offenses punishable under Section 8(c) read with Section 22(c), Section 27A, and Section 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. These sections pertain to the production, manufacture, possession, sale, purchase, transport, warehousing, use, consumption, import inter-state, export inter-state of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance; punishment for contravention in relation to psychotropic substances of commercial quantity; punishment for financing illicit traffic and harboring offenders; and punishment for abetment and criminal conspiracy, respectively.
Prosecution’s Case and Alleged Nexus
The prosecution, represented by Learned APP Mr. Rajput, presented a strong opposition to Sayyed’s bail. According to the police, on August 8, 2023, 10 grams of Mephedrone (MD) were recovered from Sayyed’s conscious possession. Crucially, it was alleged that Sayyed, during his interrogation, disclosed information that led to the arrest of co-accused Javed Ayub Khan, from whom 60 grams of Mephedrone (MD) were recovered.
Further investigation based on these disclosures led to the apprehension of Mohd. Asif Nasir Shaikh, from whom 10 grams of Mephedrone (MD) were seized. Shaikh reportedly revealed procuring the contraband from individuals named Arif Chinna, Hasan, and Ajmal. Additionally, it was disclosed that co-accused No. 4, Iqbal Mohd. Ali Shaikh, had taken Mephedrone (MD) from him for sale. Based on this information, Iqbal Mohd. Ali Shaikh was apprehended, and 20 grams of Mephedrone (MD) were recovered from his possession.
The prosecution emphasized that while the quantity recovered directly from Sayyed was an intermediate quantity, the cumulative quantity of contraband recovered from all the accused, based on the chain of disclosures, amounts to a commercial quantity. This aggregation is a critical factor in NDPS cases, as it triggers stricter bail provisions under Section 37 of the Act. The APP argued that investigation revealed that Sayyed and the co-accused are drug peddlers with a clear nexus, indicating a wider drug trafficking operation. The prosecution expressed concern that granting bail at this stage would hamper the ongoing investigation.
Defense Arguments
Learned Advocate Ms. Archana Pandey, representing Anwar Afsar Sayyed, argued that this was Sayyed’s first bail application and no other similar application was pending in any higher court. She contended that only 10 grams of MD were recovered from Sayyed, classifying it as an “intermediate quantity.” The defense specifically denied any nexus between the applicant and the co-accused, asserting that there was no positive material on record to suggest that Sayyed had hatched any conspiracy with them. Ms. Pandey stated that Sayyed is a resident of Mumbai and was ready to abide by any conditions the court might impose for his release.
Court’s Observations and Rejection
After reviewing the application, submitted documents, the APP’s “say” (reply), and other material on record, and hearing both sides, Judge Kshirsagar made several key observations.
The court noted that the cumulative quantity of contraband recovered from Sayyed and the co-accused amounts to a commercial quantity. Prima facie appreciation of the material on record, the judge stated, revealed that Sayyed is a drug peddler and involved in the sale of contraband. The court found “positive material which indicates the nexus between applicant/accused and the co-accused which indicates the conspiracy.”
Crucially, the court highlighted that the investigation in the case is not yet complete. Judge Kshirsagar stated that there was no material on record to doubt the genuineness of the prosecution’s case or to suggest any inherent infirmities or improbabilities.
Addressing the potential impact of releasing Sayyed on bail, the court observed: “Considering the nature of offence the possibility that, after release of the applicant/accused, the applicant/accused may tamper the prosecution witnesses or influence the witnesses or may involve in commission of such offences cannot be ruled out at this stage.” The judge also stated that a “free, fair and full investigation” would likely be prejudiced and hampered if the applicant were released, deeming further detention necessary to facilitate the investigation.
The court reiterated that Sayyed appeared to have played an “active role” and that the offense was of a “heinous nature.” It further stated that “at this stage high degree of evidence is also not required to establish the conspiracy.” The court concluded that Sayyed had failed to prima facie demonstrate that he was not involved in the crime.
Ultimately, Judge Kshirsagar ruled that releasing Sayyed at this stage would likely be prejudicial to the interest of society at large, and that a “liberal approach in grant of bail in such kind of offences under NDPS Act is also uncalled.”
Based on these findings, NDPS Bail Application No. 773/2023 was rejected and disposed of. Sayyed will remain in judicial custody as the investigation continues. This decision underscores the judiciary’s strict approach to bail in NDPS cases, especially when commercial quantities of contraband and an alleged nexus between accused individuals are involved.