Allowed

Sanjay Vinayak Medhekar v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC12 Oct 2021BA/259/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under the NDPS Act, the High Court considered rival submissions regarding the applicant's alleged role as a source of contraband. The court held that co-accused statements without corroborative material were insufficient for detention, noting the applicant was detained nearly two years. Bail was granted on conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail in Crime No. 08 of 2019 by furnishing a ₹1,00,000 bond with one or more local sureties, with conditions regarding witness interference and attendance.

Sanjay Vinayak Medhekar Vs the State of Maharashtra — Narcotics (NDPS) | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

1/750 BA 259.21.doc

¶2

Dusane

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

BAIL APPLICATION NO.259 OF 2021

¶5

....
Mr. Sanjay Vinayak MedhekarApplicant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra ....
Respondent

¶6

Mr. Niranjan Mundargi i/by Mr. Siddhesh R. Samel for Applicant.
Mr. A.R. Kapadnis, APP for State.

¶7

API Awaghade Prakash, ATS Navi Mumbai Unit.

¶8

Coram : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.
Date : 12th OCTOBER, 2021

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

1.On 12th November, 2019, in Crime No. 08 of 2019,
registered with Kalachowki Police Station (Navi Mumbai Unit), for an

¶11

offence punishable under Sections 8(c), 22 and 29 of N.D.P.S. Act, the

¶12

applicant was arrested and subsequently charge-sheeted.

¶13

2.The prosecution case is, from the custody of accused Nos.

¶14

1 to 4, commercial quantity of psychotropic substance came to be

¶15

Dusane2/750 BA 259.21.doc

¶16

seized, of which during investigation, i.e. from the statement of co-
accused, source was noticed to be present applicant. As such, the
applicant was also arrested and subjected to custodial interrogation.

¶17

3.Place of residence and business of the applicant was
searched, so also statements of other persons, who claimed to have
remotely connected to the crime named Vaibhav Mhaske and Dattatray
More were also recorded.

¶18

4.In the aforesaid background, the submissions of learned
counsel for the applicant, Mr. Mundargi that, there is hardly any material
on record to connect the applicant to the crime in question. So as to
substantiate his contentions, he has invited my attention to the charge-
sheet viz. recovery from co-accused Abrar Usman Rahatwilkar of the
banned substance of about Rs.1,52,000/-. The statements of Dattatray
More and Vaibhav so as to claim that the role attributed to the applicant
in the crime in question is that of source of procurement of the banned
substance. He would further claimed that during investigation nothing
could be recovered from the applicant or from his place of residence or
place of business.

¶19

3/750 BA 259.21.doc

¶20

Dusane

¶21

5In the aforesaid background, submissions are even if an
offence is serious one, the applicant cannot be further detained for
want of sufficient evidence as he is falsely implicated.

¶22

6.Learned APP while strenuously opposing for grant of bail
invited my attention to the statement of co-accused, who has named
the applicant as source of contraband material. Similarly the
statements of Vaibhav and More are also relied, so as to demonstrate
that the applicant, at relevant time, was trading in the banned
substances and was also in possession of the same. His further
contentions are, the offence is serious one and that being so, the
application is liable to be rejected.

¶23

7. Considered rival submissions.

¶24

8.The contraband substance worth about Rs.1,50,000/- is

¶25

already seized from co-accused, Abrar. The said Abrar claimed to have
stated that the present applicant has provided the contraband material.
As such statement of the co-accused recorded during investigation led

¶26

Dusane4/750 BA 259.21.doc

¶27

to arrest of the applicant. The search on the establishment of the
applicant does not yield any result as nothing was seized from the
custody of the applicant. The statement of co-accused further led to
involvement of one Vaibhav and witness More, who are cited as witness
against the applicant. Even if, in the statements of Vaibhav and More,
the applicant is alleged to be a person, who was trading in the
contraband i.e. banned substance, there is no basis or material on
record to support the same but for the aforesaid statements. The
allegations against the applicant in the case in hand appears to be based
on the statement of co-accused and the statement of other two
witnesses, that too without any foundation. The applicant is already
behind bar for almost two years. There are no criminal antecedents.

¶28

9.Chapter 3 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for the sake
of brevity) provides for prohibition, control and regulation of
psychotropic Substances and narcotic drugs.

¶29

Section 8 of the Act prohibits certain operations.

¶30

Dusane5/750 BA 259.21.doc

¶31

Sub-Section (c) of Section 8 of the Act prohibits

¶32

manufacture, possession, sell, purchase, transport, warehouse, use,
consume, import inter-State, export inter-State, import into India,
export from India or tranship any narcotic drug or psychotropic
substance, except for medical or scientific purposes and in the manner
and to the extent provided by the provisions of this Act and rules
thereunder or orders.

¶33

Section 22 of the Act provides for punishment for
contravention in relation to psychotropic substances, whereas Section
29 of the Act provides for punishment for abetment and criminal
conspiracy.

¶34

10.The charge-sheet does not depict any material to prima
facie infer that the applicant has made himself prima facie liable for
criminal prosecution pursuant to Sub-Section (c). Considering the
allegations against the applicant, even the necessary ingredients of
Section 29 about abetment and criminal conspiracy are not
demonstrated.

¶35

Dusane

¶36

6/750 BA 259.21.doc

¶37

11.The statement of the co-accused against the applicant is
permitted to be used for pressing out trail qua the involvement of the
other accused persons in the crime. Ofcourse the two witnesses
Vaibhav and More and co-accused has named the applicant from whom
the contraband claimed to be procured.

¶38

12. The statement of co-accused in the aforesaid background
cannot be considered for ordering further detention of the applicant at
this stage, as same has to be restricted for the purpose of investigation
only.

¶39

13.In the aforesaid background, in my opinion, a case for grant
of bail is made out. The application is allowed on following conditions :

¶40

O R D E R

¶41

(i)The applicant be released on bail in Crime No. 08 of 2019,
registered with Kalachowki Police Station (Navi Mumbai Unit), for the

¶42

offence punishable under Sections 8(c), 22 and 29 of N.D.P.S. Act, on

¶43

7/750 BA 259.21.doc

¶44

Dusane

¶45

furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh

¶46

Only) with one or more local sureties in the like amount.

¶47

(ii)The applicant shall neither influence the prosecution

¶48

witnesses in any manner nor tamper with the evidence.

¶49

(iii)The applicant shall furnish address of his permanent
residence and also furnish his latest contact details to the I.O.

¶50

(iv)The applicant shall attend the trial regularly.

¶51

(v) If there are 2 consecutive defaults in appearing before the
trial Court, prosecution will be at liberty to apply for cancellation of
Applicant’s bail.

¶52

(vi)If applicant is found involved in similar type of offence,
liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

¶53

BHALCHANDRA GOPAL DUSANE

¶54

( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. )

¶55

Digitally signed by BHALCHANDRA GOPAL DUSANE Date: 2021.10.14 15:03:59 +0530

Sanjay Vinayak Medhekar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Vinayak Medhekar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Bherulal Jain @ Raujesh Dhakkad Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajesh Ramdhani Sharma Vs the State of Maharashtra

Krushna Anil Kumbhar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Krishana Shivkumar Panday Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ashok Dattu Bhoir Vs the State of Maharashtra

Akram Sardarali Shaikh @ Akku Vs the State of Maharashtra