The Bombay High Court has refused to grant bail to a man, arrested in connection with a 500-gram Mephedrone seizure under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).
On February 21, 2024, acting on specific intelligence, the Anti-Narcotics Cell, Navi Mumbai, intercepted the applicant and upon search, conducted after apprising him of his rights under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, the police recovered 500 grams of an off-white crystalline powder suspected to be Mephedrone, along with a weighing scale, small plastic packets, and a mobile phone. The contraband was sealed, labelled, and produced before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panvel, who verified the seizure and issued an inventory certificate under Section 52(A) of the NDPS Act. Subsequent forensic analysis confirmed the presence of Mephedrone and Methamphetamine.
In the bail plea, the applicant contended that the prosecution failed to establish the identity and quantity of the seized substance. He argued that the Chemical Analyzer’s report was delayed, that discrepancies existed between the seals on the certificate and forwarding form, and that the applicant’s mobile location did not correspond to the seizure site. He further submitted that the actual quantity might be below the commercial threshold and that prior criminal antecedents alone could not justify denial of bail.
Opposing the plea, respondent argued that the procedural safeguards under Sections 42, 50, and 52(A) of the NDPS Act had been fully complied with. The prosecution also pointed to three previous cases of a similar nature against the applicant, indicating a continuing pattern of criminal behaviour.
After examining the record, the Court found the contention of location of mobile phone or the commercial quantity of the contraband cannot be decided at this stage. Referring to Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif (2024) 11 SCC 372, Justice Amit Borkar observed that minor procedural irregularities, such as delay in sending samples to the forensic lab, could not by themselves invalidate the seizure or entitle the accused to bail. What is material is the substantive compliance of the provisions ensuring fair procedure, which in the present case stands prima facie established.
The Court further held that the presumption under Section 54 of the NDPS Act applied against the applicant, who failed to provide a plausible explanation for his possession of the narcotic substance. It noted that his prior criminal history and the nature of the offence indicated a likelihood of reoffending, thereby failing the second condition of Section 37.
Holding that the applicant has not shown any exceptional circumstance such as procedural illegality going to the root of the case, lack of prima facie evidence, or any violation of fundamental rights, the Court has dismissed the bail Application.
Appearances
Mr. Taraq Sayed for the applicant.
Mrs. Rajashree Newton, APP, for the State.
Mr. S.A. Mehetar, Head Constable, Anti-Narcotics Cell, Navi Mumbai.
