This Single Judge allowed a bail application in an NDPS case. The court granted bail on similar terms as imposed on a released co-accused, noting the applicant had no criminal antecedents while the prosecution case primarily relies on co-accused statements.
Applicant released on bail with Rs 2 Lac personal bond and strict reporting conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2-BA-987-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.987 OF 2013
IMRAN JAFFARULLAH KHAN )...APPLICANT
V/s.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA )...RESPONDENT
Mr.A.P.Mundargi Senior Advocate a/w. Mr.Ayaz Khan Advocate for the Applicant.
Mrs.Shilpa Gajare - Dhumal APP for the State.
Investigating Officer Mr.S.N.Rokade, AP.I., Anti Narcotic Cell, Bandra Unit, Mumbai, present in the court.
CORAM: ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.
DATE : 22nd JULY, 2013.
P.C. :
1 Heard Mr.A.P.Mundargi, the learned senior advocate, and also Mr.Ayaz Khan, the learned advocate for the applicant, and Mrs.Shilpa Gajare – Dhumal, the learned APP for the State.
2 In view of the arguments advanced, it was thought desirable to peruse the case diaries, in addition to the material found in the application and the annexures thereto, i.e. copy of charge-sheet.
avk 1/7
2-BA-987-2013
3 The applicant is the accused no.2 in NDPS Special Case No.55 of 2013. The said case arises on the basis of C.R.No.316 of 2012, registered at Anti Narcotic Cell, Bandra Unit of Crime Branch, Mumbai. There are totally three accused, who have been arrested in this case, so far, and atleast two more are said to be wanted and absconding.
4 The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Anti Narcotic Cell, Mumbai, received some secret information on telephone that in the shop / office of S.B.International – a courier company – situate at Andheri (East), there were some parcels in which a psychotropic substance – Amphetamine – had been concealed. On the basis of this information, the police party and the panchas raided the said office and recovered Amphetamine powder, totally weighing about 84 kgms, valued at about Rs.8.40 Crore, from a consignment which had been delivered in the office of S.B.International, by one Ramesh Maniyam – the wanted accused. Investigation commenced. The police went on to trace the offenders on the basis of investigation as to from where, and from whom, the parcels in question had been sent. It turned out that the parcels had been sent from Chennai by SAFEX Couriers, and then from the office of SAFEX Couriers at Mumbai, the said Ramesh Maniyam had collected it personally and delivered it in the office of S.B.International. It turned out that they were lying in the office of S.B.International for a considerable time, and that, though the proprietor of S.B.International had suspected that the parcels contained
avk 2/7
2-BA-987-2013
some narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, he had not reported the matter to the police. He, however, had not taken any steps towards forwarding the same to Malaysia.
5 The connection of the applicant with the said parcels is sought to be established on the basis that, it was he, who had contacted some persons and got enquiries regarding the parcels to be made, and prevail over the courier company to take steps to send the same to Malaysia. It is claimed that the applicant had given false information to those persons, viz: that the parcels had been detained in the Customs, and that, they were to be cleared.
6 It appears that enquiries with M/s.S.B.International in respect of the parcels in question were actually made by one John. When John's statement was recorded, he said that he had been told to make these inquiries by one Gangadhar. Gangadhar, when contacted, reported to the investigating agency that he was doing so at the instance of one Mohd.Kunni. Mohd.Kunni, in his statement, said that he was asked to make attempts to get the consignment cleared, by one Changez Khan. It is Changez Khan, who said that he had been doing the needful at the instance of the present applicant.
7 The learned counsel for the applicant has raised a number of contentions including that the remaining of the parcels in the office of M/s.S.B.International for a long period was suspicious. He pointed out that the owner Kailash Sharma, apparently, inspite of suspecting the parcels to be containing some contraband, did not take any steps to
avk 3/7
2-BA-987-2013
report the matter to the police. It is also submitted that whether the contraband was actually sent from Chennai is not clear, in as much as, the delivery of the parcels, after they had been received at the office from SAFEX Couriers at Mumbai, was taken by the wanted accused Ramesh Maniyam, and that, the possibility of the parcels having been tampered with before they were delivered in the office of S.B.International was not ruled out.
8 How far these aspects, if accepted, would affect the case of the prosecution, would be clear only during the trial. At this stage, it may, however, be observed that, the connection of the applicant with the alleged offence is sought to be established quite remotely. The person, who actually contacted S.B.International for making enquiries about the consignment, and who allegedly made attempts to see that the consignment is sent to Malaysia, is not the applicant, but as aforesaid, the said John. Gangadhar, Mohd.Kunni and Changez Khan all have in some way or the other, attempted to see that the consignment is sent to Malaysia, and in the ultimate analysis, it is only the statement of Changez Khan that whatever he had done and whatever he had asked others to do, had been done by him at the instance of the present applicant, and without knowing that the consignment contained a psychotropic substance.
9 I find that the accused no.3 has been released on bail by the Special court. The Special court, however, refused to release the present applicant on bail.
avk 4/7
2-BA-987-2013
10 I have considered whether it would be just and proper to treat the applicant so differently from the accused no.3 – Sikander Ismail. The statement of Changez Khan indicates that even the accused no.3 – Sikander, and the accused no.1 – Sayyed Kader, had been trying to get the consignment cleared and it appears that the accused no.3 – Sikander, as well as accused no.1 – Sayyed Kader both, had contacted Changez Khan in that context. Though the applicant might have played rather greater role in the matter, the gravity of the case, as against him, is primarily based only on the statements made by the coaccused, which cannot be taken into consideration, now that the investigation is over. If the admissible material against each of the accused is taken into consideration, though, there might be some distinction between the case of the said co-accused and the present applicant, the distinction cannot be said to be so much, that the accused no.3 – Sikander Ismail – should be released on bail, while the applicant should be detained in custody, till the conclusion of the trial. So far as the accused no.1 – Sayyed Kader is concerned, he had some criminal antecedents, and therefore, his case for bail could be considered from a different angle, but admittedly, so far as the applicant is concerned, there are no antecedents.
11 Under these circumstances, I think it fit to release the applicant on bail, on similar terms and conditions, as have been imposed by the trial court on the accused no.3 – Sikander Ismail.
12 The application is allowed.
avk 5/7
2-BA-987-2013
13 The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.2 Lac, with one surety in the like amount, or two sureties in the sum of Rs.1 Lac each, on the following conditions :
avk 6/7
2-BA-987-2013
14 Any failure of the applicant to report to the Triplicate Police Station, Chennai, shall forthwith be reported by the Officer incharge of the said Police Station to the investigating agency, i.e. Anti Narcotic Cell, Bandra Unit, Mumbai. The investigating agency shall immediately make a report regarding it to the Special court. On such report, the Special court may take further and proper action in the matter, in accordance with law, as if the bail order had been passed by it.
(ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.)
avk 7/7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail can be granted to an accused where the sole material implicating him is the statement of a co-accused.
Whether the applicant should be treated differently from a released co-accused given the nature of connection to the offence.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Imran Jaffarullah Khan
The State of Maharashtra
Abhay M. Thipsay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
