Allowed

Mohd Afzal Hussain Shaikh v. Intelligence Officer and Anr.

Bombay HC14 Sept 2023BA/1082/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Opposite to the High Court allowed bail to the applicant charged under the NDPS Act for possession of mephedrone. The court imposed conditions including monthly reporting and prohibition on tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Enlargement on bail under Rs. 25,000/- with sureties; directed to attend NCB office monthly and not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.

Mohd Afzal Hussain Shaikh Vs Intelligence Officer and Anr. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

10-ba-1082-2022.doc

¶2

Shubhada S Kadam

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1082 OF 2022

¶6

Mohammed Afzal Hussain Shaikh ....Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, ...Respondents Mumbai Zonal Unit and Anr.

¶9

SHUBHADA Digitally signed bySHUBHADA SHANKAR SHANKAR KADAM KADAM Date: 2023.09.2511:01:21 +0530

¶10

Mr. R. S. Bidkar, Advocate for the Applicant.

¶11

Mr. Shreeram Shirsat with Ms. Aditi Rao, Mr. Tanveer Khan and Mr. Shekhar Mane, Advocate for Respondent No.1-NCB. Mr. Y. Y. Dabke, APP for Respondent No.2-State.

¶12

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

¶13

DATE : 14^th SEPTEMBER, 2023.

¶14

P.C. :

¶15

By this application, applicant is seeking bail in Crime No.NCB/MZU/CR-01/2021 registered with NCB-Mumbai for offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 22(c), 27, 27A, 28 and 29

¶16

of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

¶17

It is prosecution’s case that on 1^st January 2021, specific information was received by Mr.Sudhakar Shinde, Investigating Officer, which was reduced in writing and accordingly raid was conducted with the prior approval and 75 gms of Mephedrone (MD)

¶18

1/3

¶19

10-ba-1082-2022.doc

¶20

Shubhada S Kadam

¶21

was recovered from the flat of applicant.

¶22

It is contention of learned counsel for applicant that the C.A.report of seized MD indicates negative. Applicant is behind bar for more than three years. Hence, requested to allow the application.

¶23

Learned special counsel submitted that when search of applicant's flat was taken, 75 gms MD was found, it is commercial quantity. Though first C.A. report of the seized MD is negative, NCB filed an application for retesting it, before trial Court which was intially allowed but by subsequent order, the same was rejected by the Trial Court. Hence, the present application be rejected.

¶24

I have heard both learned counsel, perused the complaint and charge-sheet.

¶25

The C.A. report of seized MD from the flat of applicant has come negative. Application was filed by NCB for retesting it. Though intially the application was allowed, by subsequent order, the same is rejected by concerned authority. Applicant is behind bar for more than three years.

¶26

In view of above, I pass following order :

¶27

ORDER

¶28

(i) Applicant be enlarged on bail in Crime No.NCB/MZU/CR-

¶29

2/3

¶30

10-ba-1082-2022.doc

¶31

Shubhada S Kadam

¶32

01/2021 registered with NCB-Mumbai, on executing

¶33

P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶34

(ii) Applicant shall attend the office of NCB, Mumbai, once in a month i.e. on first Monday between 11.00 a.m. to 3.00 p.m..

¶35

(iii) Applicant shall inform his latest place of residence and mobile number immediately after being released and/or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from time to time to the Investigating Officer.

¶36

(iv) Applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case.

¶37

(v)In the event, if NCB challenges the order and if the order is reversed, NCB is at liberty to take appropriate steps.

¶38

The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is accordingly disposed off.

¶39

All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this

¶40

order.

¶41

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

¶42

3/3

Mohd Afzal Hussain Shaikh v. Intelligence Officer and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Afzal Hussain Shaikh v. Intelligence Officer and Anr.

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

Jaya Tushar Sukenakar Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rohan Ashok Ovhal Vs State of Maharashtra

Jitendra Singh Subhash Singh Juni Vs State of Maharashtra

Vilas Raju Mirazkar Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Lovel Benedict Baptist Vs State of Maharashtra

Shyam Kondiba Shelar Vs the State of Maharashtra