Mumbai, Maharashtra – December 4, 2018 – In a significant ruling, the Special Judge for NDPS Cases for Greater Bombay at Mumbai, Shri V.V. Vidwans (CR No. 42), on November 30, 2018, granted regular bail to Sultan Sohail Sayyad, identified as Accused No. 1, in Criminal Bail Application No. 825/2018. Sayyad was arrested by the ANC Ghatkopar Unit, Mumbai, in connection with NDPS R.A. No. 1106/2018 for alleged offenses under sections 8(c) read with 20 and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.

Allegations and Defense’s Stand

The prosecution, represented by Ld. APP Mr. P.S. Tawade, contended that Sayyad was apprehended on November 6, 2018, during a police trap based on specific information. The charges against him and other co-accused stemmed from an alleged criminal conspiracy related to drug trafficking. During the search, 2 kilograms and 400 grams of Ganja were reportedly recovered from Sayyad’s possession. Additionally, varying quantities of Maxcoff-T syrup, Rexcan new 100 ml syrup, and Rexus cough syrup were recovered from five other co-accused (Accused No. 2 to Accused No. 6).

The prosecution opposed bail, arguing that the investigation was at a preliminary stage and that Sayyad was a “habitual offender” who, if released, was likely to repeat similar offenses.

However, Ld. Advocate Ms. Suvidha Patil, representing Sayyad, strongly argued that the quantity of contraband seized from her client did not fall within the “commercial quantity” threshold. She emphasized that the quantity recovered from each accused must be considered individually for bail purposes, rendering the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act inapplicable to Sayyad’s case.

Key Arguments and Legal Precedents

Ms. Patil placed significant reliance on the Central Government Gazette Notification bearing No. S.O. 1181(E) dated 5.5.2015, which specifies thresholds for various controlled substances. She contended that under this notification, the recovered quantity from Sayyad was non-commercial.

Furthermore, addressing the “habitual offender” allegation, Ms. Patil cited several judgments to argue that mere pendency of cases or prior involvement in other offenses, which have not reached a final conviction, cannot be a sole ground to brand an individual as a habitual offender and deny bail. The precedents cited included:

1. Sangeeta Y. Gaikwad V/s. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Application No. 2597/2006): A Bombay High Court authority from 2006, supporting the argument that if the quantity seized is non-commercial, Section 37 of the NDPS Act may not apply.
2. Bunty Shankarlal Chugh V/s. State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition No. 717 of 2010): This Bombay High Court case held that merely pending cases for preventive action (like U/s 111 Cr.P.C.) are not sufficient to prove habitual offender status.
3. Ramrup Bhagwandas Gupta V/s. State of Maharashtra (Cr. Appln. No. 706 of 2006): Another Bombay High Court decision where involvement in multiple pending cases was deemed insufficient to treat an accused as a habitual offender without final conviction.
4. Raosaheb Patole V/s. The State of Maharashtra (Cri. Bail Appln. No. 373 of 2011).
5. Virendra Tiwari V/s. The State of Madhya Pradesh (MCRC – 8210-2015).
6. Binod Kumar @ Binod Kumar Bhagat V/s. The State of Bihar (Cri. Appeal No. 1383 of 2017): An Apex Court ruling concerning cough syrups containing codeine, where a Government Notification prohibiting their sale was quashed, and specific concentration limits were considered in determining if they constituted narcotic drugs.
7. Halima Sadiq Syed V/s. The State of Maharashtra (Cri. Bail Appln. No. 803 of 2014): A Bombay High Court case where bail was granted for possession of 5 kgs of Ganja, categorized as a non-commercial quantity, thus not attracting Section 37.

Court’s Deliberation and Ruling

Special Judge V.V. Vidwans thoroughly reviewed the bail application, the investigating officer’s report, and the oral submissions from both counsels. The court explicitly noted that the “individual quantity of the seized contraband, which is recovered from the possession of the accused, is non-commercial quantity.” This finding directly aligned with the defense’s argument, especially in light of the Central Government Gazette Notification cited.

The judge also meticulously analyzed the various authorities presented by Ms. Patil. He found that in similar circumstances, both the Hon’ble Apex Court and various High Courts had granted bail, often subject to conditions, recognizing that the prosecution’s apprehension could be addressed through such impositions. The court concluded that allowing bail with stringent conditions would serve the purpose of the prosecution without necessitating continued pre-trial detention.

Bail Granted with Conditions

Accordingly, the court allowed Bail Application No. 825 of 2018 and ordered that Sultan Sohail Sayyad be released on his executing a Personal Recognizance (P.R.) Bond of Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees Seventy-Five Thousand Only) with one or two local sureties to the same extent.

The bail is subject to the following stringent conditions:

• The applicant/accused No. 1 shall attend the Investigating Officer at ANC Ghatkopar Unit once in a fortnight on the 1st and 3rd Saturday of the month between 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM, until the chargesheet is filed. If the I.O. is absent, he must report to the PSO Incharge.
• The applicant/accused No. 1 shall not tamper with prosecution witnesses/evidence in any manner and shall co-operate in the investigation.
• The applicant/accused No. 1 shall furnish his cell/landline number and also those of his two nearest relatives or two friends, preferably residing in Mumbai.
• The applicant/accused No. 1 shall produce proof of his identity and proof of residence at Mumbai at the time of executing the bail bond.
• The applicant/accused No. 1 shall not commit similar offenses while on bail.

The court explicitly warned that any breach of these conditions would entail the cancellation of bail.

The bail application was disposed of accordingly.