The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) dismissed the anticipatory bail application filed by an accused in a narcotics case involving the seizure of 45 grams of Mephedrone (MD), a prohibited psychotropic substance under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The application pertained to alleged offences under Sections 8(c), 21(b), 27, and 29 of the NDPS Act.
The applicant was added to the charge-sheet on the basis of frequent call records and financial transactions with key accused persons, as well as statements of independent witnesses identifying him. The applicant asserted that these transactions stemmed from legitimate business dealings related to his firecracker trade and claimed false implication. He further contended that, at the highest, he could be prosecuted under Section 27 (consumption) of the NDPS Act, which he argued is a bailable offence.
The Bench comprising Justice Advait M. Sethna discussed several judicial precedents in this regard. The Court took note of the Bombay High Court order in Karishma Prakash vs. Union of India & Ors.[1] where, in light of conflicting precedents, the question of bailability of Section 27 was referred to a larger bench. In light of the same, the Court observed that the binding precedent at this stage is the Supreme Court judgement in the case of State of Punjab vs. Baldev Singh[2] where a Constitutional Bench held that Section 37 of the NDPS Act makes all offences under the Act to be cognizable and non-bailable, and also lays down stringent conditions for the grant of bail.
Citing sufficient prima facie case against the applicant, the Court observed that the applicant’s version of events ought to be viewed with circumspection at this preliminary stage. The Bench also invoked the Supreme Court’s observations in Union of India vs. Ram Samujh & Ors.[3], highlighting the severe societal impact of narcotic offences and the need to strictly regulate the grant of bail in such cases.
The Court further emphasised, relying on Muraleedharan vs. State of Kerala[4], the necessity of custodial interrogation to trace the money trail and unearth the wider nexus of drug trafficking. Given that several co-accused remain absconding, there is high risk of witness tampering.
Accordingly, the Court rejected the anticipatory bail application, while granting the applicant liberty to surrender before the Trial Court and seek regular bail, which will be considered on merits without being influenced by the observations in this judgment.
[1] Order dated 12 July 2022 in Anticipatory Bail Application No.1998 of 2021
[2] (1999) 6 SCC 172
[3] 1999 SUPP 2 SCR
[4] AIR 2001 SC 1699
AppearancesÂ
Applicant: Mr. V. D. Sapkal, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. R. N. Patil
Respondent: Mr. A. V. Lavte, APP
