Mumbai, Maharashtra – July 24, 2025 – A Special Judge for NDPS (Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances) Act cases in Greater Bombay, Shri U. M. Mudholkar (C.R. No. 43), on November 21, 2018, rejected the bail application of Mustakeem Mohd. Ali, a 21-year-old from Kerala, who was arrested in connection with an international amphetamine smuggling attempt. The court found sufficient prima facie material linking Ali to the crime and highlighted that the commercial quantity of the seized psychotropic substance attracted the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
The Case: A Smuggling Trail Uncovered
The prosecution’s case, presented by Ld. APP Mr. Panjwani, painted a detailed picture of the alleged smuggling operation. The Anti-Narcotic Cell (ANC), Kandivali Unit, Mumbai, initiated action based on specific information received from CSI Airport, Mumbai. Authorities at the airport had flagged a co-accused, Furkanam, who was attempting to clear passport control to travel to Qatar with suspicious baggage.
Upon receiving this intelligence, PI Kadam of the ANC recorded the information in official records. A dog sniffing squad was deployed, which led to the inspection of Furkana’s three baggage items. Concealed within three storybooks, 13 wax bangles, and skipping ropes, officers discovered 465 grams of Amphetamine, a psychotropic substance with an estimated value of Rs. 23,25,000/-. The contraband was seized, and an FIR (CR No. 41/2018) was registered under various sections of the NDPS Act, including 8(c) read with 22(C), 23, and 29.
Co-accused Furkana was immediately arrested. Her subsequent custodial interrogation proved crucial, as she disclosed that the trolley bags containing the drugs were handed to her by co-accused Tabassum and Rashid Faras at Hotel Shalimar. Tabassum and Rashid Faras were then arrested.
Further interrogation of Rashid Faras revealed a deeper conspiracy. He implicated individuals named Niyaz, Shoeb, co-accused Abdul Rashid, and the present applicant, Mustakeem Mohd. Ali. Faras claimed that these individuals had stayed at Hotel Zhamzham, where, under Mustakeem Mohd. Ali’s direction, the bags were given to Faras. Faras, with the help of Tabassum, then handed them over to Furkana at Hotel Shalimar for transit to Qatar. Mustakeem Mohd. Ali was subsequently arrested and, after police custody, was remanded to judicial custody.
Bail Sought on Grounds of No Direct Recovery
Ld. Advocate Mr. Taraq Sayyed, representing Mustakeem Mohd. Ali, sought bail primarily on the ground that his client was falsely implicated. The core of his argument was that no contraband was recovered directly from Mustakeem Mohd. Ali either at the time of his arrest or during the subsequent investigation. He contended that Ali’s arrest was based solely on the statement of a co-accused, which he argued could not be categorized as legal evidence for the purpose of denying bail.
Mr. Sayyed further submitted that his client had been thoroughly interrogated and his continued judicial custody was unwarranted. He emphasized that Ali is a permanent resident of Kerala with deep roots in society and was willing to abide by any conditions imposed by the court if granted bail.
Prosecution Opposes Bail, Citing Ongoing Investigation and Conspiracy
The respondent/State, through Ld. APP Mr. Panjwani, strongly opposed the bail application. The prosecution’s reply highlighted that a commercial quantity (465 grams) of Amphetamine was indeed seized from co-accused Furkana. They argued that Mustakeem Mohd. Ali and his associates were actively involved in exporting this commercial quantity of drugs from Mumbai to Qatar.
The prosecution stressed that the investigation was not only ongoing but also at a “crucial stage.” They indicated that assistance from CDR (Call Detail Record) and cyber experts was being sought, and CCTV footage was under scrutiny. Furthermore, several wanted accused persons, including Shoeb, Niyaz, Munis, and Mohasin, were yet to be arrested to uncover the full extent of the conspiracy. The prosecution expressed concern that releasing Ali on bail at this juncture could seriously prejudice the ongoing investigation.
Court’s Decision: Prima Facie Complicity and Bar of Section 37
Special Judge U. M. Mudholkar, after careful consideration of the submissions and the record, delivered the oral order rejecting the bail. The court noted that while no contraband was physically seized from Mustakeem Mohd. Ali, the investigation, including disclosures from co-accused, “clearly revealed” his complicity.
“The investigation further reveals that, the contraband was handed over to co-accused Rashid Faras by applicant Mustakeem and his associates,” the order stated. The judge found that there was “prima facie material on the record demonstrating applicant’s involvement in the commission of alleged offences” at this stage of the proceedings.
Crucially, the court held that since a commercial quantity of Amphetamine was seized by following due procedure, the bar of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would “certainly get attracted.” This section imposes stringent conditions for bail in cases involving commercial quantities, requiring the court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offense while on bail.
Given that the investigation was at a “crucial stage” with wanted accused still at large and technical evidence being gathered, the court concluded that releasing Mustakeem Mohd. Ali on bail, especially for offenses attracting a potential rigorous punishment of 20 years, was “not at all desirable.”
Rejecting the arguments put forth by the applicant’s counsel, the court pronounced its order, dismissing Bail Application No. 717 of 2018. Mustakeem Mohd. Ali will remain in judicial custody as the investigation progresses.