Mumbai, May 2, 2025 (Friday, 10:12 PM IST, Thane, Maharashtra): The Special Court for Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Gr. Bombay, presided over by Additional Sessions Judge K.P. Kshirsagar (C.R.43), has denied the bail application of Ms. Priyanka Ashok Karkaur, accused number 9 in Spl. LAC/C.R. No.56/2023 (originally C.R. No.172/2023 registered with Navghar Police Station). The order, dated October 3, 2023, was issued in NDPS Bail Application No.766 of 2023, filed in connection with NDPS Remand Application No. 1100 of 2023.

Ms. Priyanka Ashok Karkaur, a 24-year-old artist and dancer residing in Chembur, Mumbai, was arrested in connection with a case involving offences punishable under sections 420, 465, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as well as sections 8(c) read with 22(c), section 20, and section 29 of the Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

In her bail application, represented by Ld. Adv. Archana Tiwari, Ms. Karkaur argued that she was falsely implicated in the case and had no connection with the other co-accused arrested. She claimed to be a dancer with a two-year-old child and suffering from various ailments, including cancer. The defense further alleged that the contraband purportedly recovered from her was planted due to an altercation with the police and asserted the absence of positive material linking her to the co-accused. It was also argued that the quantity of contraband allegedly recovered from her was an intermediate quantity, thus not attracting the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Ms. Karkaur, a resident of Mumbai, expressed her willingness to abide by any conditions imposed by the court. Advocate Tiwari relied on a judgment of the Bombay High Court in Hitesh Hemant Malhotra Vs. State of Maharashtra.

Conversely, Ld. APP Mr. P.J. Tarange, representing the prosecution, detailed the recoveries made from the co-accused, including Mephedrone (MD) and Charas in varying quantities. He specifically pointed out that 14 grams of Charas were recovered from the possession of the applicant, Ms. Karkaur, who was found sitting in a car along with co-accused Sarfaraz Shabir Ali Khan @ Golden Bhure. The prosecution also highlighted the recovery of two Aadhar cards with different names but bearing the applicant’s photograph, and a substantial amount of cash (Rs. 17,06,250/-) from the house shared by the applicant and co-accused Sarfaraj. The APP argued that the cumulative quantity of contraband recovered in the crime was commercial, thereby attracting the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. He emphasized that the applicant and co-accused Sarfaraj were traveling together in the same car, indicating a nexus between them. The prosecution also claimed that the applicant had criminal antecedents and presented WhatsApp chats between the applicant and a co-accused related to the contraband, further suggesting their involvement. The APP argued that Section 29 of the NDPS Act (related to conspiracy) was applicable, making Section 37 also applicable to the applicant. He contended that releasing the applicant at this stage could hamper the ongoing investigation and urged the court to reject the bail application.

After considering the arguments and the material on record, Additional Sessions Judge K.P. Kshirsagar rejected Ms. Karkaur’s bail plea. The court noted that the applicant was alleged to have committed offences punishable under the NDPS Act, and the cumulative quantity of contraband recovered from the applicant and co-accused was commercial. The court found prima facie substance in the prosecution’s contention that the applicant and co-accused No. 8 were traveling together in the same car, and contraband was recovered from the possession of all accused, along with the recovery of a large sum of cash from their shared residence. This, according to the court, negated the applicant’s claim of having no nexus with the co-accused or involvement in any conspiracy.

The court further observed that prima facie, the applicant and co-accused appeared to be drug peddlers involved in drug trafficking, with the applicant playing an active role. The court found substance in the prosecution’s argument that there was a nexus between the applicant and the co-accused, and they had likely hatched a criminal conspiracy, thus making Section 29 of the NDPS Act applicable, along with the restrictions of Section 37. The court concluded that the applicant had failed to demonstrate reasonable grounds to believe that she was not guilty of the alleged offences, and conversely, there appeared to be reasonable grounds to believe she had committed them, thus failing to satisfy the conditions for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

The court distinguished the facts of the case from the judgment relied upon by the applicant in Hitesh Hemant Malhotra Vs. State of Maharashtra, finding the observations therein not helpful to the present case.

The court also noted that the investigation was still ongoing and found no reason to doubt the genuineness of the prosecution’s case or any inherent infirmities. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the court opined that there was a possibility of the applicant tampering with witnesses or becoming involved in similar offences if released on bail at this stage. The court concluded that releasing the applicant could prejudice the ongoing investigation and that further detention was necessary to facilitate it.

Finally, the court stated that based on the accusations and prima facie appreciation of the material, the applicant appeared to have played an active role in a heinous offence, with the investigation suggesting her involvement in drug peddling and a nexus with the co-accused. The court deemed that at this stage, the applicant had failed to demonstrate her non-involvement in the crime and that releasing her would be prejudicial to the interest of society. The court found no justifiable grounds for granting bail at this stage and thus rejected the application.

The order was pronounced in open court on October 3, 2023, and subsequently signed and uploaded on October 9 and 11, 2023, respectively.

This denial of bail underscores the stringent approach adopted by the special court in NDPS cases, particularly when commercial quantities of drugs are involved and there is prima facie evidence of the accused’s involvement and potential conspiracy. The applicant will remain in judicial custody pending further investigation and potential trial.