Mumbai, Maharashtra | October 7, 2023 – The Special Court for Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Gr. Bombay, Judge K.P. Kshirsagar (C.R.43), granted bail to Shamim Akram Ahmad, a 44-year-old artisan, who was arrested in connection with a case involving the possession of Mephedrone (MD). The order, pronounced on October 7, 2023, pertains to NDPS Bail Application No. 808 of 2023, arising from NDPS Remand Application No. 1098 of 2023, related to Spl. LAC/C.R. No. 56/2023 registered at Dongri Police Station.

Shamim Akram Ahmad was arrested for offences punishable under section 8(c) r/w section 22(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

The prosecution’s case alleged that on August 11, 2023, 26 grams of Mephedrone (MD) were recovered from the possession of the applicant.

The applicant sought bail, arguing that this was his first bail application, and no other applications were pending in higher courts. He stated that the quantity of the contraband recovered was intermediate, and therefore, the strict conditions of section 37 of the NDPS Act did not apply. He had no prior criminal record, and nothing further needed to be recovered from him. He had been in custody since August 11, 2023, and was a permanent resident of Mumbai, willing to abide by any conditions imposed by the court.

The prosecution argued that the offence was serious, and the applicant possessed 15 plastic pouches along with the Mephedrone, indicating intent to sell. They claimed he was a drug peddler, the investigation was incomplete, and the source of the contraband was yet to be arrested. They feared he would commit similar offences and not be present for the trial if released.

Special Judge K.P. Kshirsagar considered the submissions and the material on record. The court noted that the quantity of Mephedrone recovered was intermediate, making section 37 of the NDPS Act inapplicable. The applicant had been in custody since August 11, 2023, and nothing further was to be recovered from him. He had no prior criminal record. The court found no justifiable grounds for further detention.

The court emphasized that personal liberty is a fundamental right, and there is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The object of bail is to secure the accused’s attendance at trial, not to punish or preventively detain them. The court found that the applicant had cooperated with the investigation and was likely to attend the trial if released. The prosecution’s interests could be protected by imposing conditions. Therefore, the court found no necessity for further detention to facilitate a full and fair investigation.

Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the applicant’s age and background, and the prima facie material, the court concluded that releasing the applicant on bail would not prejudice a fair investigation or the interests of society. Therefore, there were justifiable grounds to grant bail.

ORDER

1. NDPS Bail Application No. 808/2023 is allowed.
2. Applicant/accused Shamim Akram Ahmad shall be released on bail in Spl. LAC/C.R. No. 56/2023 for offence under section 8(c) r/w section 22(b) of NDPS Act, 1985 registered by Dongri police station on executing a personal bond of ₹50,000/- with one surety in the like amount on the following conditions: (a) The applicant/accused shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer and shall make himself available for interrogation as and when required.(b) The applicant/accused shall not tamper with prosecution evidence or influence the prosecution witnesses in any manner.(c) The applicant/accused shall cooperate in the early disposal of the trial.(d) The applicant/accused shall not commit any criminal offence while on bail.(e) The applicant/accused and his surety shall provide their mobile numbers and present address and proof of residence at the time of execution of the bail bond/surety bond.
3. NDPS Bail Application No. 808/2023 is disposed of accordingly.

The order, pronounced in open court on October 7, 2023, reflects the court’s consideration of the specific circumstances of the accused, the nature of the offence, and the need to balance individual liberty with the interests of justice and the ongoing investigation.