Allowed

Oniongo Thomas v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC12 Apr 2024BA/1564/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NDPS bail application where samples were drawn at the time of seizure without following the mandatory Section 52A procedure, as held in Mohanlal and Simarnjit Singh. The State conceded non-compliance. The court held this a grave lacuna in the prosecution case and granted bail on conditions including monthly police station reporting and trial attendance.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail in C.R.No.14/2021, Mira Road Police Station, on PR bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties; monthly reporting and trial attendance conditions imposed.

Oniongo Thomas vs the State of Maharashtra — Narcotics (NDPS) | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

(2)ba-1564-2024.doc

¶2

rajshree

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1564 OF 2024

¶5

Oniongo Thomas ] .. Applicant vs. State of Maharashtra ] .. Respondent

¶6

Mr.Vikas Chavan a/w Kamlesh S., Iqbal Jalgaonkar and Nilesh Bangar for the Applicant.

¶7

Mr.S.V. Gavand, APP for the State.

¶8

PSI Tanaji Savant, Mira Road Police Station, present.

¶9

CORAM : BHARATI DANGRE, J

¶10

DATE : 2^nd AUGUST, 2024.

¶11

P.C.

¶12

1] On 28.03.2024, the Bail Application was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file afresh on the ground of non compliance of Section 52A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, as this ground though available, was not specifically urged in the Application.

¶13

Digitally signed by RAJSHREE RAJSHREE KISHOR MORE KISHOR Date: MORE 2024.08.02 17:16:53 +0530

¶14

2] Upon this liberty being conferred, the present Application is filed wherein, ground No.6 specifically state that there is no adherence to the provisions of Section 52A of the NDPS Act, which is now held to be

¶15

1/3

¶16

(2)ba-1564-2024.doc

¶17

mandatory. It is also urged that on the spot, samples were taken and they were sent for chemical analysis, which gave a positive report.

¶18

There is inherent defect in the procedure as held by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v/s Mohanlal and Anr. (2016) 3 SCC 379.

¶19

In addition, the learned counsel has also placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex court in the case of Simarnjit Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 906, where categorically it is held that, act of drawing samples at the time of seizure is not in confirmity with the law laid down in Mohanlal ( supra ) and it creates doubt about prosecution case that the substance that was recovered, was a contraband.

¶20

3] The learned APP Mr. Gavand, do not dispute that the procedure prescribed under Section 52A was not followed and even till date there is no procedure adopted to that effect.

¶21

In the wake of the above, in the light of settled position of law and relying upon the decision in the case of Mohanlal (supra) and Simarnjit Singh, time and again it has been held to be a grave lacunae in the prosecution case and since there exist a reasonable ground for believing that he is not guilty of the offence, the Applicant deserve his release on bail.

¶22

2/3

¶23

(2)ba-1564-2024.doc

¶24

4] The observations made above are prima facie in nature and limited for the purpose of determination of the present Application and the learned Judge trying the Applicant for the offences, with which he is charged, shall not in any manner be influenced by the above order.

¶25

Hence, the following order :-

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

(a) Bail Application is allowed.

¶28

(b) The Applicant Oniongo Thomas shall be released on bail in connection with C.R.No.14 of 2021 registered at Mira Road Police Station (Special Case No.333/2021) on furnishing P.R. bond to the extent of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties of the like amount.

¶29

(c) The applicant shall report to the concerned Police Station once on first Monday of every month between 10.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon.

¶30

(d) The Applicant shall regularly attend trial, on every date, unless exempted.

¶31

(e) Upon release, the Applicant shall furnish his contact number and permanent residential addresses to the Investigating Officer and shall keep him updated in case of change in the same.

¶32

[BHARATI DANGRE, J.]

¶33

3/3

Oniongo Thomas v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Oniongo Thomas 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sanjusha Khan and Anr. vs Sajid Khan and 5 Ors.

Nisargaland Scape Pvt. Ltd. Thr. Its Signatory Authority Pankaj P. Patil vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Principal Secretary Urban and Development Department and Anr.

Khanderao Shankar Patil and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Ors.

Pradip Balwant Tippe Vs the State of Maharashtra

Gurukrupa Vikas Sanstha vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Prin. Secretary, Health Dept. and Ors.

Navnit Cooperative Housing Society Limited vs Neev Infrastructure Private Limited