Mumbai, October 9, 2023 – The Special Court for Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Gr. Bombay, presided over by Additional Sessions Judge (C.R.43) Shri K.P. Kshirsagar, rejected the bail application of Shahnawaaz Mohd Shamim Siddiqui, accused in C.R. No. 65/2023 registered with ANC Bandra Unit, Mumbai. The court, in its order dated October 6, 2023, cited the recovery of a commercial quantity of Mephedrone (MD) when combined with the co-accused’s possession, the ongoing investigation indicating a nexus and conspiracy, and the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act as reasons for denying bail.
The case involves allegations against Shahnawaaz Mohd Shamim Siddiqui, a 38-year-old businessman residing in Goregaon West, Mumbai, for offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with Section 22(c) (pertaining to commercial quantity of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances) and Section 29 (criminal conspiracy) of the NDPS Act, 1985.
Advocate Mr. Taraq Sayed, representing the applicant, argued that this was the first bail application filed by his client and that no other such application was pending. He stated that as per the prosecution’s case, 22 grams of Mephedrone (MD) were recovered from the applicant’s possession, and 30 grams of MD were recovered from the co-accused, Kailaskumar Prabhulal Meghwal, at the same location on July 18, 2023. He contended that his client had no connection with the co-accused and that there was no positive material on record indicating any nexus or conspiracy between them. Mr. Sayed emphasized that the independent quantity of contraband recovered from the applicant was 22 grams, which he argued was an intermediate quantity, thus making the stringent conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act inapplicable. He concluded by stating that the applicant was a resident of Mumbai and willing to abide by any conditions imposed by the court, praying for his release on bail.
On the contrary, Learned APP Mr. P.J. Tarange argued that on July 18, 2023, the applicant and the co-accused were found together in suspicious circumstances, with the aforementioned quantities of Mephedrone recovered from their respective possessions. He stated that the ongoing investigation and CDR analysis of their mobile phones revealed that they were in contact with a wanted accused, Sanjay Morwal, from whom they had allegedly procured the contraband. The APP argued that this constituted positive material indicating a nexus between the applicant, the co-accused, and the wanted accused. He further emphasized that the cumulative quantity of contraband recovered in the case (22 grams + 30 grams = 52 grams) amounted to a commercial quantity of Mephedrone. Therefore, Section 29 of the NDPS Act (conspiracy) was applicable, and consequently, the stringent conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act also applied. The APP contended that the investigation was in progress and releasing the applicant at this stage could hamper it, urging the court to reject the bail application.
Additional Sessions Judge Shri Kshirsagar, after perusing the application, documents, the APP’s submissions, and the material on record, noted that the applicant was accused of offences under Section 8(c) read with Section 22(c) and Section 29 of the NDPS Act. The court highlighted that the cumulative quantity of Mephedrone recovered from the applicant and the co-accused was indeed a commercial quantity. Based on a prima facie appreciation of the material, the court opined that the applicant appeared to be a drug peddler involved in the sale of contraband. Considering the ongoing investigation and the CDR analysis, the court found no substance in the applicant’s contention that there was no positive material showing a nexus or conspiracy between him and the co-accused. The court also noted that the wanted accused was yet to be arrested.
The court further stated that the investigation was incomplete and there was no prima facie material to doubt the genuineness of the prosecution’s case or any inherent improbability. The court expressed concern that releasing the applicant could lead to tampering of evidence, influencing witnesses, or involvement in similar offences. Considering the commercial quantity of contraband seized and the facts of the case, the court believed that releasing the applicant at this stage could prejudice a fair and full investigation. Therefore, the court found it necessary for the applicant to remain in detention to facilitate further investigation.
Moreover, the court noted that the applicant appeared to have played an active role in the alleged crime, which was of a heinous nature. The investigation suggested the applicant’s involvement in drug peddling and a nexus with the co-accused. The court clarified that at this stage, a high degree of evidence was not required to establish conspiracy and that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that he was not involved in the crime.
Considering the facts, discussion, and prima facie appreciation of the material, the court concluded that releasing the applicant at this stage was likely to be prejudicial to the interest of society at large and that a liberal approach in granting bail for such offences under the NDPS Act was unwarranted.
Consequently, the court rejected the bail application of Shahnawaaz Mohd Shamim Siddiqui. The order was pronounced in open court on October 6, 2023, and subsequently signed and uploaded on October 9, 2023. This decision underscores the strict approach taken by the courts in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotic drugs and the importance of the ongoing investigation and the potential for hampering it if bail is granted prematurely. The case also highlights the applicability of Section 29 (conspiracy) and the consequent invocation of the stringent conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act when the cumulative quantity of drugs recovered from multiple accused involved in the same crime amounts to a commercial quantity.