Mumbai, Maharashtra – September 29, 2018 – The Special Judge (NDPS) and Additional Sessions Judge, Shri V.V. Vidwans (CR NO.42), granted regular bail to four individuals – Suresh Kashinath Kasbe, Tasleem Hussain Shaikh, Yasmeen Valli Mansuri @ Yasmin Veelasa Mansuri, and Valli Isha Mansuri – in Bail Application No. 648 of 2018. The accused were arrested in connection with NDPS Special Remand Application No. 900 of 2018, stemming from C.R. No. 31/2018 registered at Kasturba Marg Police Station on September 15, 2018.

The accused were apprehended at Nehru Nagar, Borivali (E), Mumbai. As per the prosecution, the following quantities of contraband were recovered during their personal search:

• Suresh Kashinath Kasbe (Accused No. 1): 11.770 grams of Mephedrone
• Tasleem Hussain Shaikh (Accused No. 2): 6 grams of Heroin
• Yasmeen Valli Mansuri @ Yasmin Veelasa Mansuri (Accused No. 3): 9 grams of Heroin
• Valli Isha Mansuri (Accused No. 4): 7.680 grams of Heroin and Rs. 350/- cash

Defense Arguments:

Learned Advocate Mr. V. P. Shinde, representing all four applicants, argued that his clients had been falsely implicated. He emphasized that the quantities of seized contraband were non-commercial quantities, thus the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act were not attracted.

According to the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act:

• Mephedrone: Small quantity is 0.5 grams; commercial quantity is 50 grams.
• Heroin: Small quantity is 5 grams; commercial quantity is 250 grams.

Based on these thresholds, the quantities recovered from the accused (11.770g Mephedrone, 6g Heroin, 9g Heroin, 7.680g Heroin) all fall within the “more than small quantity but less than commercial quantity” range.

Mr. Shinde further submitted that all accused were permanent residents of their given addresses in Mumbai and were not likely to abscond. They were ready to abide by any conditions imposed by the court. He also pointed out alleged procedural irregularities, stating that the arrest, personal search, and seizure were effected by police officers below the rank of head constable, which, if true, could be a violation of mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. Additionally, he highlighted that Accused No. 4, Valli Isha Mansuri, suffered from a 40% visual impairment in both eyes.

Prosecution’s Opposition:

Learned APP Mr. Panjwani opposed the bail application, specifically pointing out that Accused No. 1, Suresh Kashinath Kasbe, had a criminal antecedent, with C.R. No. 38/2017 pending against him under Sections 8(C) read with 21(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act. He argued that Kasbe was habitually involved in prohibited activities under the NDPS Act and therefore, bail should be rejected.

Court’s Ruling:

Special Judge V.V. Vidwans considered the arguments and the submitted “say” from the respondent/State. Regarding the criminal antecedent of Suresh Kasbe, the Judge noted that it is a “settled law that mere pendency of the criminal proceedings against the applicant/accused is not sufficient ground to consider him has a habitual offender.” Thus, the prosecution’s objection on this ground was deemed not helpful.

Considering that the quantities of contraband recovered were non-commercial quantities, which means Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not attracted, and in light of the accused being permanent residents and unlikely to abscond, the court found it “just and proper” to allow the bail application.

Bail Conditions:

The court granted bail to all four applicants on the following conditions:

1. Each applicant/accused shall execute a Personal Recognizance (P.R.) Bond of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only), with one or two local solvent sureties of the like amount, during the pendency and until the conclusion of the trial.
2. Each applicant/accused shall report to the concerned police station every Saturday between 03:00 p.m. to 06:00 p.m. until the filing of the charge-sheet.
3. Each applicant/accused shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement or threat to any prosecution witnesses and shall not in any manner tamper with the prosecution evidence.
4. Each applicant/accused shall co-operate in the early disposal of the case.
5. Any breach of these conditions or any attempt to delay the trial would make them liable for cancellation of bail.

Recognizing the potential time needed to furnish sureties, the learned counsel for the accused orally requested provisional cash bail, which the court also allowed. The applicants were permitted to be released on depositing a provisional cash bail of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) each in the Court for a period of six weeks.

The Bail Application No. 648/2018 was accordingly disposed of.