0% found this document useful (0 votes)
50 views8 pages

Ordjud 9

The High Court of Bombay granted bail to two applicants, Riyazali Ahmed Khan and Niyaz Shabbir Khan, who were arrested under the NDPS Act for possession of Mephedrone. The court noted the long incarceration of the applicants and the lack of substantial evidence against Niyaz Shabbir Khan, while also emphasizing that the observations made in the order were solely for the purpose of granting bail and not on the merits of the case. Both applicants are required to comply with specific conditions upon their release.

Uploaded by

fitness in
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
50 views8 pages

Ordjud 9

The High Court of Bombay granted bail to two applicants, Riyazali Ahmed Khan and Niyaz Shabbir Khan, who were arrested under the NDPS Act for possession of Mephedrone. The court noted the long incarceration of the applicants and the lack of substantial evidence against Niyaz Shabbir Khan, while also emphasizing that the observations made in the order were solely for the purpose of granting bail and not on the merits of the case. Both applicants are required to comply with specific conditions upon their release.

Uploaded by

fitness in
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 8

2025:BHC-AS:15802

916.BA.4903.24 & 24.BA.825.25.doc

Ajay

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY


CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 4903 OF 2024

Riyazali Ahmed Khan .. Applicant


Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent

WITH
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 825 OF 2025

Niyaz Shabbir Khan .. Applicant


Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
....................
 Ms. Rithika Yerra, Advocate i/by Mr. Anil Lalla for Applicant in Bail
Application No.4903 of 2024.
 Mr. Kamlesh Satre a/w. Mr. Atul Sarpande and Mr. Pranay Saraf,
Advocates for Applicant in Bail Application No.825 of 2025.
 Mr. Sukanta A. Karmakar, APP for Respondent – State in Bail
Application No.4903 of 2024.
 Ms. Mahalakshmi Ganapathy, APP for Respondent – State in Bail
Application No.825 of 2025.
 Mr. N.B. Chavan, PSI – ANC Azad Maidan Unit present
......…...........
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : APRIL 04, 2025.

P.C.:

1. Heard Ms. Yerra, learned Advocate for Applicant in Bail

Application No.4903 of 2024; Mr. Satre, learned Advocate for

Applicant in Bail Application No.825 of 2025; Mr. Karmakar, learned

APP for Respondent – State in Bail Application No.4903 of 2024 and

Ms. Ganapathy, learned APP for Respondent – State in Bail Application

No.825 of 2025.

1 of 8

::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2025 23:21:38 :::


916.BA.4903.24 & 24.BA.825.25.doc

2. This is a group of two Bail Applications. In Bail Application

No.4903 of 2024, Applicant is arraigned as Accused No.1 in the crime

whereas in Bail Application No.825 of 2025, Applicant is arraigned as

Accused No.3 in the present case. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were

apprehended in a chance recovery due to their suspicious movements

by a patrolling team and found with the alleged contraband. 115

grams of Mephedrone (MD) was recovered from Accused No.1

whereas intermediate quantity of 25 grams of MD was recovered from

Accused No.2.

3. Accused No.2 is already enlarged on bail. Date of arrest is

23.06.2023. In the enquiry conducted under Section 67 of the NDPS

Act, Accused No.1 disclosed the name of Accused No.3 as being the

supplier of the alleged contraband to him. Hence, Accused No.3 was

also apprehended and arrested.

4. Prima facie in so far as Accused No.3 is concerned, at the

time of his arrest he was already incarcerated in prison in another

NDPS offence. Hence, the veracity of the statement recorded under

Section 67 of the NDPS Act about Accused No.1 having disclosed that

the alleged contraband was supplied by Accused No.3 to him prima

facie becomes a suspect.

2 of 8

::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2025 23:21:38 :::


916.BA.4903.24 & 24.BA.825.25.doc

5. The Supreme Court in the case of Tofan Singh Vs. State of

Tamil Nadu1 held that statements recorded by NDPS officers could be

construed as statements to police officers given their duties and

responsibilities in preventing and detecting crime under the NDPS Act.

It held that right against self-incrimination and right to privacy under

Article 20(3) and Article 21 of the Constitution apply to confessions

recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. It also held that officers

under the NDPS Act should be construed as 'police officers' under

Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to prevent coercion in

recording confessions and that confessions made before such officers

are inadmissible as evidence to protect fundamental rights under

Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution.

6. Ms. Ganapathy, learned APP for Respondent – State in Bail

Application No.825 of 2025 persuades the Court to consider that

Accused No.3 has antecedents against him. Prima facie, I find no

reason as to why his custody is warranted which is solely based on the

statement of co-accused recorded by the NDPS Officers as delineated

hereinabove when no contraband is recovered from his conscious

possession.

7. In so far as Accused No.1 is concerned, though learned

Advocate has persuaded me to consider the seizure panchnama,

inventory panchnama as also the other documentary evidence placed


1 (2021) 4 SCC 1

3 of 8

::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2025 23:21:38 :::


916.BA.4903.24 & 24.BA.825.25.doc

on record and appended to the charge-sheet for giving an imprimatur

prima facie on transgression of the statutory provisions, I have heard

Mr. Karmakar, learned APP for the Respondent – State in Bail

Application No.4903 of 2024. Though Mr. Karmakar would prima

facie submit that even if there is a technical transgression of any of the

statutory provisions it would not wish away the fact that Accused No.1

was apprehended with the alleged contraband weighing commercial

quantity thereby inviting rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. He

would submit that in that view of the matter, the onus would lie on the

Applicant to prove that he was not involved in the crime and his arrest

is prima facie mala fide and he be released on bail.

8. Mr. Karmakar would also persuade the Court to consider the

aspect of not giving any imprimatur or prima facie observations on the

grounds of transgression since it would affect the trial which the

prosecution desires to undertake before the Trial Court. He would

submit that giving a prima facie opinion on transgression of any of the

statutory provisions would probably entail the prosecution not to rely

upon the same at the time of trial and it would otherwise amount to

giving a clean chit to the Applicant at an interim stage.

9. He would in his usual fairness however inform the Court that

there is prima facie delay in commencing the trial which is evident

from the face of record since for the past 1 year and 5 months the

4 of 8

::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2025 23:21:38 :::


916.BA.4903.24 & 24.BA.825.25.doc

Applicant is incarcerated but charge has not been framed. To that

extent Mr. Karmakar as also Ms. Ganapathy, learned prosecutors

would persuade the Court to pass appropriate orders.

10. I have heard Ms. Yerra, learned learned Advocate for

Applicant in Bail Application No.4903 of 2024; Mr. Satre, learned

Advocate for Applicant in Bail Application No.825 of 2025; Mr.

Karmakar, learned APP for Respondent – State in Bail Application

No.4903 of 2024 and Ms. Ganapathy, learned APP for Respondent –

State in Bail Application No.825 of 2025 with their able assistance

perused the record of the case.

11. On the aforementioned delineated facts and adhering to the

submissions made by the learned prosecutors, prima facie, I am of the

opinion that due to long incarceration of the Applicant in Bail

Application No.4903 of 2024 for more than 1 year and 9 months

pending trial Applicant can be released on bail. One of the reason

which impels me to consider the ground of long incarceration of the

Applicant being the only ground for consideration are the submissions

made by the learned prosecutors lest any prima facie imprimatur by

this Court on statutory transgression of procedure at this stage may

affect the prosecution case at the time of trial before the Trial Court.

Equally, considering the role of Applicant in Bail Application No.825 of

2025 and his indictment solely on the basis of co-accused statement

5 of 8

::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2025 23:21:38 :::


916.BA.4903.24 & 24.BA.825.25.doc

and the above prima facie observations, he is also entitled to be

released on bail. Complicity of both Accused persons can be proved by

the Prosecution at the time of trial. In that view of the matter, both

Applicants can be released on bail.

12. Hence, Bail Applications are allowed subject to the following

terms and conditions:-

(i) Applicants are directed to be released on bail on

furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each

with one or two sureties in the like amount;

(ii) Applicants are permitted to furnish provisional cash bail

of Rs.50,000/- each for their release immediately and

file undertaking that their will provide one or two

sureties in the like amount of Rs.50,000/- each within a

period of four weeks after their release which shall be

accepted by the Trial Court. Applicants shall provide

sureties as directed;

(iii) Before their actual release from jail, Applicants shall

furnish their address where they propose to reside after

their release from jail to the concerned Police Station

and also to the trial Court;

(iv) After their release from jail, Applicants shall report to

6 of 8

::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2025 23:21:38 :::


916.BA.4903.24 & 24.BA.825.25.doc

the Investigating Officer as and when called for;

(v) Applicants shall attend the trial Court on first Tuesday

of every month between 11.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. to

mark their presence. If the first Tuesday of the said

month falls on a holiday and / or non Court working

day, the Applicants shall mark presence on the next

working day;

(vi) Applicants shall co-operate with the conduct of trial and

attend the trial Court on all dates unless specifically

exempted and will not take any unnecessary

adjournments, if they do so, it will entitle the

prosecution to apply for cancellation of this order;

(vii) Applicants shall not leave the State of Maharashtra

without prior permission of the Trial Court;

(viii) Applicants shall not influence any of the witnesses or

tamper with the evidence in any manner; and

(ix) In case of any infraction of the above conditions and /

or two consecutive defaults in marking their

attendance before trial Court, it shall attract the

provisions of Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. i.e. for

cancellation of bail.

7 of 8

::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2025 23:21:38 :::


916.BA.4903.24 & 24.BA.825.25.doc

13. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are

limited for the purpose of granting bail only and I have not made any

observations on merits of the case. The trial shall be adjudicated on

the strength of the evidence led and strictly on its own merits being

uninfluenced with any of the prima facie observations made herein

above in this order.

14. Both Bail Applications are allowed and disposed.

[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

Ajay
Digitally signed
by AJAY
AJAY TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date: 2025.04.05
13:50:50 +0530

8 of 8

::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2025 23:21:38 :::

You might also like