Mumbai, Maharashtra – In a significant ruling on November 2, 2023, the Special Court for Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, at Greater Bombay, rejected the bail application of Shamshuddin Nizamuddin Shah, also known as Niyajuddin Shaha. The applicant, identified as accused No. 3 in the case, sought bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with C.R. No. 56/2023 (Crime Branch Unit-6, Mumbai) and C.R. No. 172/2023 (Navghar Police Station, Mumbai). The charges involve offenses under Sections 420, 465, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Sections 8(c) read with 22(c), 20, and 29 of the NDPS Act.

The bail application, NDPS BA No. 857 of 2023, was heard by Additional Sessions Judge K.P. Kshirsagar. The court noted that the application was presented and registered on September 29, 2023, and decided after a duration of one month and three days.

Prosecution Alleges Commercial Quantity and Inter-Accused Nexus

The prosecution, represented by Learned APP Mr. P.J. Tarange, strongly opposed the bail, highlighting the recovery of a commercial quantity of contraband from multiple co-accused. The court was informed that on August 16, 2023, a significant amount of Mephedrone (MD) and Charas was seized from a group of individuals found in a car. Specifically:

• 62 grams of Mephedrone (MD) from co-accused No. 1 Sahil Ramzan Ali Khan.
• 54 grams of Mephedrone (MD) from co-accused No. 2 Mohammad Azmal Qasam Shaikh.
• 31 grams of Charas from the applicant/accused No. 3, Shamshuddin Niazuddin Shah.
• 20 grams of Mephedrone (MD) from co-accused No. 4 Imran Aslam Pathan.
• 14 grams of Mephedrone (MD) from co-accused No. 5 Mohammad Taufiq Shaukat Ali Mansoori.
• 18 grams of Mephedrone from co-accused No. 6 Mohammad Ismail Salim Siddhiqe.

Additionally, 58 grams of Mephedrone (MD) was recovered from co-accused No. 7 Sarfaraz Shabir Ali Khan alias Golden Bhura, and 14 grams of Charas from co-accused No. 9 Priyanka Ashok Karkaur, who were in another vehicle (MH-04-GZ-2772).

The prosecution emphasized that the cumulative quantity of contraband recovered across all accused involved in the crime reached a commercial quantity, thereby invoking the stringent conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Mr. Tarange argued that there was positive material on record to indicate a nexus between the applicant and the co-accused, suggesting they had hatched a conspiracy. He further asserted that the applicant was a drug peddler and that his release at this stage could hamper the ongoing investigation.

Defense Argues Intermediate Quantity and Lack of Nexus

Learned Advocate Ms. Nagma Khan, representing the applicant, contended that this was the first bail application and no other similar application was pending in a higher court. She argued that only 31 grams of Charas was recovered from the applicant’s possession, which falls under the category of an intermediate quantity, not a commercial one. Ms. Khan maintained that her client was innocent, falsely implicated, and had no nexus with the co-accused. She asserted there was no positive material to suggest any conspiracy. The applicant, a resident of Mumbai, was ready to abide by all court-imposed conditions. The defense also cited the Bombay High Court’s ruling in Sagar Nana Borkar Vs. The State of Maharashtra (Criminal Bail Application No. 3636/2022, dated 15.09.2023), though the court later found this citation inapplicable to the current case’s facts.

Court’s Findings: Rigors of NDPS Act Section 37 Applied

After reviewing the application, submitted documents, and arguments, the court found prima facie involvement of the applicant in the alleged offenses. Judge Kshirsagar observed that the applicant was accused under Section 8(c) read with 22(c), 20, and 29 of the NDPS Act. The court specifically noted:

• The cumulative quantity of contraband recovered from all co-accused was indeed a commercial quantity.
• There appeared to be a nexus between the applicant and the co-accused, as they were found traveling together in a private car.
• The court found substance in the prosecution’s contention that the applicant and co-accused were involved in drug trafficking and had hatched a criminal conspiracy, making Section 29 of the NDPS Act applicable.
• Consequently, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act were attracted, meaning the applicant had to demonstrate reasonable grounds to believe he was not guilty and that he was unlikely to commit any offense while on bail. The court found that the applicant failed to satisfy these conditions.

The court also stated that the judgment cited by the defense was not applicable due to differing facts. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the investigation was not yet complete and that releasing the applicant at this stage could lead to tampering with witnesses or hindering the investigation. The judge also highlighted the heinous nature of the offense and the applicant’s active role in what appeared to be drug peddling, emphasizing that a “liberal approach in grant of bail in such kind of offences under NDPS Act is also uncalled.”

Conclusion

Based on these findings, the Special Court concluded that there were no justifiable grounds to release Shamshuddin Nizamuddin Shah on bail at this stage. The application was therefore rejected, reinforcing the strict stance of the judiciary in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics and alleged conspiracies under the NDPS Act.