The High Court rejected the anticipatory bail application. Relying on CDR evidence of telephonic conversations and the applicant's history of similar NDPS cases, the court distinguished the relied-upon precedent and held that complicity was evident.
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.
1 of 3 12.ABA.2200.2021.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2200 OF 2021
Krushna Raju NaiduApplicant
versus
The State of MaharashtraRespondent
Mr.Rajendra S. Bidkar, Advocate for applicant.
Mr.S.R.Agarkar, APP, for State.
Police Inspector Kothmire, Mira Road Police Station, present.
CORAM :PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
DATE :9th September 2021
PC :
1.The applicant is apprehending arrest in CR No.244 of 2021
registered with Mira Road Police Station for offences under Sections
8(C), 20(B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The
FIR was registered on 15th July 2021.
2.The case of prosecution is that the accused no.1 was found in
possession of Ganja weighing about 229 grams. On the basis of
disclosure made by him, the accused no.2 was arrested. The FIR
indicate that contraband was purchased from the applicant and one
more person.
3.Apprehending arrest in connection with the aforesaid FIR, the
applicant had preferred anticipatory bail application before the Court
of Sessions, which has been rejected by order dated 10th August
2021.
MANISH Digitally signed byMANISH SURESH SURESHTHATTE THATTEDate: 2021.09.1315:01:03 +0530
2 of 3 12.ABA.2200.2021.doc
4.Learned advocate for applicant submitted that the applicant
has been falsely implicated in this case. The contraband was found
in possession of accused who was arrested on the spot. Although
name of the applicant is reflected in the FIR, the allegations are
vague. The ganja involved in the crime is already recovered. Merely
on suspicion the applicant cannot be subjected to custody. With the
nature of material relied upon by the prosecution, the applicant
should not be arrested and subjected to custodial interrogation.
Reliance is placed on the judgment and order of Punjab and Haryana
High Court in case of Daljit Singh Vs. State of Haryana (CRM-M
No.12997 of 2020, decided on 16.7.2021) and it is contended that in
the said case there was recovery of contraband from the accused who
were arrested and the applicant therein who was bound to be
arrested on the basis of information provided by the co-accused, the
Court was pleased to allow said application.
5.Learned APP submitted that there is material to show the
complicity of applicant in the crime. He has been named in the FIR.
The CDR indicate that applicant and the co-accused who were
arrested, had telephonic conversation. Investigation is in progress. In
the past two other cases were registered against applicant at Navghar
Police Station being CR No.26 of 2020 for offence u/s.8(C), 20 of
NDPS Act and with Dahisar Police Station being CR No.24 of 2019
for offences u/s.8(C), 27 of NDPS Act.
6.It is apparent that the co-accused was found in possession of
ganja. The involvement of applicant was disclosed immediately.
Name of the applicant is reflected in the FIR as a person at whose
instance the arrested accused were in possession of contraband and
3 of 3 12.ABA.2200.2021.doc
indulging in sale thereof. The prosecution is also relying upon CDR
which indicate the complicity of applicant in this offence. He is also
involved in similar cases in the past. In the light of the material
showing involvement of applicant, the decision relied upon by
learned counsel for applicant is not applicable in present case.
Hence, no case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, the
Anticipatory Bail Application is rejected.
(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)
MST
3 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail ought to be granted to the applicant who anticipates arrest for NDPS offences where contraband was recovered from a co-accused based on disclosure.
Whether the applicant's past involvement in similar NDPS cases and communication with the co-accused negates the applicability of the relied-upon precedent.
Whether the material on record discloses complicity sufficient to deny anticipatory bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Daljit Singh Vs. State of HaryanaDistinguished¶14
Daljit Singh Vs. State of Haryana (CRM-M No.12997 of 2020, decided on 16.7.2021)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Krushna Raju Naidu
The State of Maharashtra
Prakash D. Naik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court