Mumbai, February 13, 2024 – The Special Court for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act in Greater Bombay has rejected the bail application of Harashad Shankar Parulekar, a 43-year-old businessman, in connection with a significant drug seizure by the Anti Narcotics Cell (ANC). The order was pronounced by His Honour Special Judge Shri A.V. Kharkar (C.R. No. 42) in Bail Application No. 1066 of 2023.
Parulekar was arrested in ANC’s C.R. No. 86 of 2023, facing charges under Section 8(C) read with Section 20(C), 20(A), and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. These sections relate to the production, manufacturing, possession, sale, purchase, transport, warehousing, use, and consumption of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, including conspiracy.
Prosecution’s Case Details a Chain of Supply
The prosecution’s case, as presented by APP Mr. Wajid Shaikh, painted a clear picture of a drug network:
- During patrolling, ANC officers apprehended accused no. 1, Sachin Nande, from whom 220 grams of charas were recovered.
- Nande then disclosed that he had obtained the charas from an individual named Carrington.
- Carrington, when questioned, revealed that he had given the contraband to the present applicant, Harashad Shankar Parulekar, for safekeeping at his rented residence.
- Carrington then led the police team directly to Parulekar.
- Parulekar admitted to keeping the contraband in a rented room and provided the keys, opening the premises for the police.
- From this rented room, a substantial quantity of drugs was recovered: 600 grams of charas from one bag and 950 grams of Hydro Ganja.
- Additionally, 900 grams of charas were recovered from the same house at the instance of accused Carrington.
The prosecution argued that the house was specifically rented as a “safe house” to stash the contraband and was in Parulekar’s exclusive possession, indicating conscious possession on his part. They emphasized that the investigation was still ongoing and granting bail at this stage could impede further inquiries into the procurement and supply chain.
Applicant’s Defense and Court’s Reasoning
Mr. Anup Lahoti, the learned Advocate for the applicant, contended that Parulekar was innocent, claiming he had merely kept a parcel given by Carrington and was unaware of its contents. He also argued that the quantity of contraband seized at Parulekar’s instance was a non-commercial quantity, implying that the stringent bar of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which restricts bail for commercial quantities, would not apply.
However, after hearing arguments from both sides and reviewing the prosecution’s reply, Special Judge Shri A.V. Kharkar found otherwise. The court noted that Carrington’s direct lead to Parulekar’s house and Parulekar’s act of opening the rented premises with his own keys “shows that the applicant had knowledge and was in conscious possession of the contraband.”
Crucially, the court highlighted that since the investigation is still at a nascent stage, it cannot be inferred that each accused was possessing contraband individually. This suggests the court is considering the aggregated quantity of the seized drugs from the joint operation, which would indeed cross the commercial quantity threshold. Therefore, the court concluded that the bar of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would apply, and there were no sufficient reasons to believe that the accused was not guilty of the offense.
Order
Consequently, the court passed the following order:
- Bail Application No. 1066 of 2023 stands rejected.
- The application is accordingly disposed of.
The order was dictated on February 14, 2024, and signed on February 17, 2024, with the certified copy uploaded on the same day.