Mumbai: The Special Judge for NDPS cases, K.P. Kshirsagar (C.R.43), has rejected the bail application of Sahil Ramjanali Khan, 27, who is accused of various offenses under the Indian Penal Code and the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, including sections 8(c) read with 22(c), 20, and 29. The order, pronounced on February 29, 2024, cited the commercial quantity of seized contraband and the alleged conspiracy among multiple accused.

Khan, a resident of Kurla (West), Mumbai, was seeking regular bail in C.R. No. 56/2023 registered at DCB-CID Unit-6, Mumbai (now Special Case No. 300/2024), which was originally registered as C.R. No. 172/2023 with Navghar Police Station.

Prosecution’s Allegations

The prosecution, represented by Ld. APP Mr. P.J. Tarange, alleged that on August 16, 2023, based on specific information, law enforcement intercepted two vehicles.

• In the first vehicle, an Ertiga (MH-04-KF-1514), accused Nos. 1 to 6 were found. From Sahil Ramjanali Khan (Accused No. 1), 62 grams of Ketamine was recovered. Other recoveries from co-accused in the same car included 54 grams of Ketamine, 31 grams of Charas, 20 grams of Ketamine, 14 grams of Ketamine, and 18 grams of Ketamine.
• The second vehicle, a Creta (MH-04-GZ-2772), contained accused Nos. 7 to 9. From co-accused No. 8, Raees Amin Qureshi, 69.73 grams of Ketamine and 54.50 grams of Mephedrone (MD) were recovered, along with 14 grams of Charas from co-accused No. 9. Additionally, 6.16 grams of Mephedrone (MD) was recovered from co-accused No. 11.

The prosecution emphasized that the cumulative quantity of contraband recovered from all accused is commercial, thereby attracting the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. They argued that Khan’s disclosure about the second car (MH-01-EG-9272, where co-accused Nos. 7-9 were located) indicated a nexus and conspiracy among all accused. Call Detail Records (CDR) were also presented as evidence of this nexus. The prosecution characterized Khan as a “drug peddler” and stated that a huge property purchased from drug trafficking business was seized.

Applicant’s Arguments for Bail

Ld. Adv. Mr. Mandar Goswami, representing Sahil Ramjanali Khan, argued that this was his first bail application and no other application was pending or rejected by a higher court. He contended that the 62 grams of Ketamine recovered directly from Khan was an “intermediate quantity,” meaning the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act applied, but not the absolute bar.

He stressed that Khan had no connection with co-accused Nos. 7 to 11 and the contraband recovered from them, as he was not found with them. Therefore, he argued that Section 29 (conspiracy) of the NDPS Act should not apply to Khan’s case. Mr. Goswami stated that the investigation was complete and the charge-sheet filed, Khan had no criminal antecedents, and he was a resident of Mumbai willing to abide by all court conditions.

Mr. Goswami relied on several citations from the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court, including:

• Sunil Shishupal Nayak Vs. The State of Maharashtra (Bail Application No. 1450/2023, dated 23/10/2023, Hon’ble Bombay High Court)
• Sagar Nana Borkar Vs. The State of Maharashtra (Criminal Bail Application No. 3636/2022, dated 15.09.2023, Hon’ble Bombay High Court)
• Saida Yusuf Shaikh V/s. The State of Maharashtra (Bail Application No. 2854/2021, dated 13.07.2022, Hon’ble Bombay High Court)
• Amarsingh Ramjibhai Barot Vs. State of Gujarat (Appeal (Cri.) No. 1218/2005, dated 19/09/2005, Hon’ble Apex Court)
• Smt. Rashida Iqbal Khan V.s State of Maharashtra (Criminal Application No. 2177/2006, dated 21.06.2006, Hon’ble Bombay High Court)

Court’s Rationale and Decision

Judge K.P. Kshirsagar acknowledged that while Khan was found with an intermediate quantity, the cumulative quantity of contraband recovered from all accused in the operation was commercial. The court emphasized the applicability of Section 37(2) of the NDPS Act, which imposes stringent limitations on bail, requiring the court to be satisfied that there are “reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.” The judge reiterated that “Negation of bail is rule and grant of bail is exception under above clause.”

The court found that:

• Specific information was received regarding the accused’s drug trafficking activities and the two vehicles they were using.
• Accused Nos. 1 to 6 were found in one car with contraband, and the revelation by accused No. 1 (Khan) led to the discovery of co-accused Nos. 7, 8, and 9 in another vehicle with more contraband, including commercial quantities from accused No. 8.
• The fact that they were traveling in private vehicles and that contraband was recovered from each of them, combined with Khan’s disclosure, prima facie suggested conscious possession and knowledge of co-accused carrying contraband.
• The entire chain of circumstances clearly pointed to a conspiracy among the applicant and co-accused.
• CDR analysis also indicated a nexus between Khan and the co-accused, making Section 29 of the NDPS Act applicable.

The court explicitly stated that Khan had “not demonstrated any reasonable grounds to believe that, he has not committed the offence alleged.” Furthermore, considering the “nature of offence and the matter on record and the fact that, huge quantity of contraband was recovered,” the court was “not satisfied that, the applicant/accused will not commit the similar offence again.” Thus, the embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act was not lifted.

The court concluded that there were “reasonable grounds to believe that, applicant/accused has committed the offence” and that releasing him at this stage would likely be “prejudicial to the interest of the society at large.” A “liberal approach in grant of bail in such kind of offences under NDPS Act is also uncalled.”

Order

NDPS Bail Application No. 1094/2023 for Sahil Ramjanali Khan was rejected.