Allowed

Yasin Ali S/O Mujjafar Ali v. the State of Maharashtra through Railway Pso Ps Ner Dist Yavatmal

Bombay HC23 Oct 2024BA/785/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail sought by an NDPS accused arrested with 190.14 kg ganja who remained in custody over three years without trial commencing. Relying on Supreme Court decisions on delay in trial and Article 21 rights, the court held the Section 37 rigour would not apply and granted conditional bail.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on PR bond Rs.1 lac with one solvent surety, subject to conditions: bi-monthly police attendance, no leaving Yavatmal district without permission, attending Sessions proceed

Yasin Ali S/O Mujjafar Ali Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-NAG:11936

¶2

307 ba785.24

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO.785 OF 2024 Yasin Ali s/o Mujjafar Ali

¶6

..vs..

¶7

State of Maharashtra, through Railway Police Station Ofcer,Ï Police Station Ner, District Yavatmal

¶8

...............................................................………………........................................………………………................................……………
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court orders or directions Court's or Judge's Order
and Registrar's orders

¶9

Shri A.K.Bhangde, Counsel and Shri N.K.Bhangde, Advocate for the Applicant.

¶10

Shri S.V.Narale, Additional Public Prosecutor for NA/State.

¶11

CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J. CLOSED ON : 19/10/2024 PRONOUNCED ON : 23/10/2024

¶12

By this application, the applicant seeks regular bail in connection with Crime No.282/2021 registered with the non- applicant/police station for of f ences punishable under Sections 20(C), 22(c), 25, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (the NDPS Act).

¶13

The applicant is arrested on 18.8.2021 and since then he is in jail.

¶14

The crime is registered on the basis of a report lodged by Assistant Police Inspect Shri Vivek Ramrao

¶15

.....2/-

¶16

307 ba785.24

¶17

¶18

Deshmukh (the informant), attached to the Local Crime Branch at Yavatmal.

¶19

As per the report, when the informant was performing his ofÏcial duty on 18.8.2021, he received a secret information that at Gram Zombadi, taluka Ner, near a house adjacent to “Jama Masjid”, a contraband stock has been carried and brought in an “Innova Car”. By reducing the same information into writing and informing to his superior ofÏcers, he conducted a raid in presence of a Gazetted OfÏcer and panchas and intercepted “Innova Car” bearing registration No.MH-12/NB/1147. A person, standing in front of the said Car, got suspected and informed others that the police reached and he fled away from the spot of the incident. The raiding party surrounded the said house and in front of one room, three men and one woman were found filing material in white sack. The said persons were also intercepted and “Ganja” weighing 190.14 kilograms was found with them and the said “Ganja” was seized. After following a due procedure, samples were obtained. The applicant was also arrested. After completion of investigation, chargesheet came to be filed against the applicant.

¶20

.....3/-

¶21

307 ba785.24

¶22

¶23

The application is filed mainly on ground of delay

¶24

in trial.

¶25

Learned counsel Shri A.K.Bhangde for the applicant, submitted that since 18.8.2021, the applicant is behind bars and there is no progress in the trial. In fact, charges are also not framed. He submitted that due to the delay in trial, right of the applicant as to speedy trial is affected. In view of that, the applicant be released on bail.

¶26

In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on following decisions:

¶27

1. V.Senthil Balaji vs. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2626;

¶28

2. Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No.4648/2024 (Ankur Chaudhary vs. State of Madhya Pradesh) decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 28.5.2024;

¶29

3. Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No.4169/2023 (Rabi Prakash vs. The State of Odisha) decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 13.7.2023;

¶30

4. Bail Application No.2713/2023 (Jamila Khatun Rahim Khan vs. The State of Mah.) decided by this court on 11.9.2024, and

¶31

5. Mohd.Muslim alias Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352.

¶32

.....4/-

¶33

307 ba785.24

¶34

¶35

Learned counsel submitted that in all these

¶36

decisions cited supra, aspect of delay in trial is considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court and accused persons therein are released on bail.

¶37

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri S.V.Narale for the State, strongly opposed the application on ground that commercial quantity of contraband was found with the applicant. Though the trial is not commenced, now, charge is already framed and the matter is ready for recording of evidence. Considering the nature of evidence, the same shows that commercial quantity of contraband was found. Rigour under Section 37 of the NDPS Act attracts and the application deserves to be rejected.

¶38

Having heard both sides and perused investigation papers, it shows that material collected during investigation sufÏciently shows involvement of the applicant in the aforesaid crime.

¶39

It is held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that Judges of the Constitutional Courts have vast experience. Based on facts on record, if Judges conclude that there is no possibility of a trial conducting in a reasonable time, powers

¶40

.....5/-

¶41

¶42

307 ba785.24

¶43

of granting bail can always be exercised on grounds of violation of Part-III of the Constitution of India notwithstanding statutory provisions.

¶44

In the case of Ankur Chaudhary supra , commercial quantity of contraband was found. However, while releasing accused on bail on ground of delay in trial, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that failure to conclude the trial within a reasonable time resulting in prolonged incarceration militates against the precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and as such, conditional liberty overriding the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act may, in such circumstances, be considered.

¶45

In the case of Rabi Prakash supra , accused therein found along with 247 kilograms of “Ganja”, who was in custody more than three and a half years, was released on bail by the Hon’ble Apex Court observing precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶46

In the present case, admittedly, involvement of the applicant in the alleged incident reveals, however,

¶47

.....6/-

¶48

307 ba785.24

¶49

¶50

considering incarceration of the applicant is more than three years, his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is affected.

¶51

In view of observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in various decisions, rigour under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not come into play.

¶52

In this view of the matter, following order is passed:

¶53

ORDER

¶54

(1) The Criminal Application is allowed .

¶55

(2) Applicant - Yasin Ali s/o Mujjafar Ali be released on bail, in connection with Crime No.282/2021 registered with the non -applicant/police station for of f ences punishable under Sections 20(C), 22(c), 25, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 , on his executing a P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.1.00 lac with one solvent surety of the like amount.

¶56

(3) He shall attend the police station twice a month i.e. 1^st and 15^th of every month and the investigating ofÏcer shall record his presence.

¶57

.....7/-

¶58

307 ba785.24

¶59

¶60

(4) He shall not leave jurisdiction of Yavatmal District without prior permission of the Yavatmal District Court.

¶61

(5) He shall attend proceedings before the Sessions Court without seeking any exemption, unless there are exceptional circumstances.

¶62

(6) He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement and threat or promise to any of witnesses of the crime in question.

¶63

Application stands disposed of .

¶64

(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)

¶65

!! BrWankhede !!

¶66

...../-

Yasin Ali S/O Mujjafar Ali v. the State of Maharashtra through Railway Pso Ps Ner Dist Yavatmal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yasin Ali S/O Mujjafar Ali v. the State of Maharashtra through Railway Pso Ps Ner Dist Yavatmal

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

Similar cases

Swati D/O Anilkumar Jambhulkar Vs State of Mah., Thr. P.S.O. Dhanora Distgadchiroli and Another

Sujit S/O Gangaram Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps Kolhapuri Gate Amravati Dist.Amravati and Another

Dinesh Fakira Mohurle Vs the State of Maharashtra through Pso Ner Tq Ner Dist Yavatmal and Another

Rajeshsing S/O Surajsingh Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra through Pso Ps Manapur Nagpur

Jahid Khan @ Monu Javed Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps Pachpaoli, Nagpur

Ritik S/O Gajanan Kalambe Vs the State of Maharashtra through Pso Ps Vathoda Dist Nagpur