Mumbai, May 2, 2025 (Friday, 10:05 PM IST, Thane, Maharashtra): The Special Judge for N.D.P.S. Cases at Greater Mumbai, Shri R. R. Bhagwat (C.R.44), has rejected the bail application of Kiran Rangrao Sonone, accused number 1 in F. No. NCB/MZU/C R – 10/2023, a case registered by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), Mumbai Zonal Unit. The order, dated October 19, 2023, was issued after hearing Bail Application No. 790 of 2023.

Kiran Rangrao Sonone, a 33-year-old resident of Kalyan, was arrested on May 27, 2023, in connection with the seizure of a substantial quantity of Ganja (marijuana). He was charged under sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C), 28, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

According to the prosecution, the NCB received specific intelligence indicating that two individuals, Kiran Rangrao Sonone (accused no.1) and Jyoti Krishnanand Keshari (accused no.2), were traveling from Visakhapatnam to Lokmanya Tilak Terminus (LTT), Kurla, Mumbai, on Train No. 18519 (VSKP LTT Express), expected to arrive at 4:15 AM on May 27, 2023. The information suggested they were carrying a large quantity of Ganja in coach S-9, seats 11 and 12.

Acting on this information, NCB officers laid a trap at the main gate of LTT Railway Station. Upon their arrival, both accused were apprehended, and the NCB claims to have seized 20.500 kilograms of flowering and fruiting tops of Ganja/Marijuana from the bags they were carrying. A panchanama was conducted, and both accused were subsequently arrested.

In his bail application, Kiran Sonone, represented by Advocate Ms. Munira Palanpurwala, argued that the total contraband of 20.5 kgs was recovered from two bags, one purportedly carried by each accused. Therefore, the entire quantity could not be attributed solely to him. The defense also raised concerns about the sampling procedure, alleging that the packets containing Ganja were mixed together before samples were drawn, which they claimed was in contravention of Standing Orders 1/88 and 1/89 and the Rules of Sampling. Ms. Palanpurwala argued that her client could not be charged with possession of a commercial quantity of Ganja/Marijuana, which would attract the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The applicant asserted his innocence, claimed to be falsely implicated, and highlighted his poor family background as the sole earning member. He also assured the court of his permanent residency in Kalyan and stated that there was no risk of him absconding or tampering with witnesses, offering to abide by any conditions imposed by the court.

During the hearing, Advocate Palanpurwala further submitted that there was a joint appraisal of rights under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, arguing that such a joint notice was not in compliance with the law. She also pointed to the lack of information regarding the pigmentation of the seized contraband and reiterated that mixing the contents of the two bags was legally impermissible. She emphasized that her client had no prior criminal record and pleaded for bail.

Opposing the bail application, learned SPP Mrs. Leena Shinde for the NCB argued that the 20.5 kgs of Ganja recovered from both accused constituted a commercial quantity, and since both accused were traveling together and in joint possession of the contraband, both were liable. She stated that the investigation was ongoing and that the aspect of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act (related to disposal of seized drugs) could be considered during the trial. Mrs. Shinde asserted that prima facie material was available against both accused, alleging that they were intending to supply the seized contraband to one Sarwari Begum, and urged the court to reject the bail application.

After reviewing the records and considering the arguments from both sides, Special Judge Shri R. R. Bhagwat rejected the bail application. The court noted the specific intelligence received detailing the accused’s travel plans, including the train number, coach, and seat numbers. The court also acknowledged that both accused were found in joint possession of two bags, each containing five packets of the contraband.

Regarding the sampling procedure, the court referred to Rule 10 of the NDPS Rules, 2022, which specifically allows for Ganja, Poppy straw, and Hashish (charas) to be bunched in lots of not more than forty packets or containers for creating a homogenous mixture. The court concluded that there was no material flaw in the process followed. The court also stated that the legal effect of compliance with Section 52-A of the NDPS Act could be specifically considered during the trial.

Addressing the issue of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, the court found no material to suggest a joint appraisal of rights. Moreover, the court pointed out that the recovery of the contraband was made from bags in a public place, which does not attract the provisions of Section 50. The court emphasized that both accused were traveling together and were in possession of Ganja in a commercial quantity, thus attracting the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

The Special Judge distinguished the citations relied upon by the defense, citing the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in Union of India v/s. Mohd. Nawaz Khan (2021) 10 SCC 100, which considered the aspect of joint possession and the liability of accused persons traveling together with concealed contraband.

In conclusion, the Special Judge held that the commercial quantity of Ganja seized, the specific prior information received, and the prima facie material available against the accused were sufficient to attract the restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The grounds raised by the applicant were deemed insufficient to overcome these restrictions.

Therefore, the court ordered the rejection of Bail Application No. 790/2023. The order was dictated on October 19, 2023, transcribed on October 20, 2023, checked on October 22, 2023, signed and uploaded on October 23, 2023.

This denial of bail underscores the strict approach taken by the special court in cases involving the seizure of commercial quantities of narcotic substances, especially when there is evidence of joint possession and prior intelligence. The case will now proceed further with the accused remaining in judicial custody.