Dismissed¶27

Mohammad Shafi Mohammad Suleman v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Pso, Ps Batshitakli, Akola

Anticipatory bail – NDPS Act

Bombay HC21 Mar 2025ABA/117/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail NDPS Act refused; applicant implicated solely through co-accused's Section 67 statement; per Samarth Kumar, Tofan Singh benefit available only at regular bail stage; mephedrone/ephedrine seizure, Barshitakli, Akola, Crime No. 523/2024; Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench, ABA 117/2025.

What did the court decide?

On perusal of the investigation papers, the Court found that the involvement of the present applicant is on the basis of the statement of the co-accused. ¶20

Mohammad Shafi Mohammad Suleman Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Bombay HC (2025)

¶1

18aba117.2025.odt

¶2

¶3

2025:BHC-NAG:2930

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO. 117 OF 2025

¶6

Mohammad Shafi Mohammad Suleman Vs State Of Maharashtra

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order

¶8

Mr. T.S. Deshpande, counsel for applicant. Ms. M.A.Barbde, APP for non-applicant/State.

¶9

CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J. DATED : 21/03/2025.

¶10

Apprehending the arrest at the hands of police in connection with Crime No. 523/2024 registered with Police Station Barshitakli, District Akola for the offence punishable under Sections 22(c), 25, 29, 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

¶11

As per the allegation on 24/10/2024, secret information was received by Shri Shankar Shelke, Police Inspector, L.C.B., Akola stating that Mephedrone Drug (MD) is being manufactured by using chemicals. Thereafter, the complainant, along with other police personnel, who were on patrolling duty within the limits of Barshitakli Police Station visited the said premises and seized ephedrine powder contained in 22 plastic packets; 133 kg Soda Ash; 410 liters Acetone, 60 liters Chloroform; 40 liters Methamphetamine (MM) and 140 liters Prepolphinol (PP). On the basis of the said conducted raid,

¶12

rkn

¶13

2 18aba117.2025.odt

¶14

the crime was registered after seizing the said articles and by following the mandatory provisions.

¶15

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that, as far as the present applicant is concerned, who was not found at the spot of the incident but he has been arraigned based on the statement of the co-accused. The statement of the co-accused is not admissible in his evidence, in view of Section 67 of the NDPS Act. Except the statement of the co-accused, there is no other material to connect the present applicant in the alleged offence. In view of that, he be protected by granting pre-arrest bail.

¶16

The learned APP strongly opposed the said application and submitted that the involvement of the present applicant was revealed during the investigation. The investigating agency, during the course of investigation, seized the articles as mentioned above, and the same were forwarded for Chemical Analysis. On Chemical Analysis, it revealed that drug which was seized is mephedrone. In view of rigor under Section 37, the application deserves to be rejected. In support of her contention, she placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs Samarth Kumar [2022 SCC OnLine SC 2087] .

¶17

After hearing both sides and on perusal of the investigation papers, it reveals that the involvement of the

¶18

rkn

¶19

3 18aba117.2025.odt

¶20

present applicant is on the basis of the statement of the coaccused. The reliance was placed by learned counsel for the applicant on the judgment of Tofan Singh vs The State Of Tamil Nadu [(2021) 4 SCC 1] . As far as the observation of the Tofan Singh is concerned, which shows that the statement of the co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is not admissible against the co-accused. However, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs Samarth Kumar referred (supra) observed that the order of the Special Court granting regular bail to the respondent shows that the said order was passed in pursuance of the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court. Therefore, the same cannot be a ground to hold that the present applications have become infructuous.

¶21

It is further alleged that, in cases of this nature, the respondent may be able to take advantage of the decision in Tofan Singh vs The State Of Tamil Nadu, perhaps at the time of arguing the regular bail application or at the time of final hearing after conclusion of the trial. To grant anticipatory bail in case of this nature is not clearly warranted, therefore, the Hon’ble Apex Court cancel the bail granted to the respondent.

¶22

In view of the said observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the present case also, the applicant can take benefit of the decision of the Tofan Singh vs The State Of Tamil Nadu , at the most, while considering or arguing the regular bail, in view of that, the bail application deserves

rkn

18aba117.2025.odt

to be rejected. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order.

¶27

a] The criminal application is rejected.

¶28

[ URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.]

¶29

rkn

Mohammad Shafi Mohammad Suleman v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Pso, Ps Batshitakli, Akola

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Shafi Mohammad Suleman v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Pso, Ps Batshitakli, Akola

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nepal S/O. Jagdish Durga vs State of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O. P.S. Grp Railway, Nagpur

Rohan @ Randi Dilip Jogdande vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso, Ps Pusad (Rural), Dist. Yavatmal

Sandeep S/O Dilip Harshe Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O. Wathoda, Nagpur

Dipak Bhagwan Tidke vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps, Sindhkhed Raja, Dist. Buldhana

Kishor Ashok Raut ( in Jail) Vs State of Maha Thr Pso, Ps Armori Dist. Gadchiroli

Chandrabhan @Gulab s/O Dhanraj Kapse Vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso, Ps Ravanwadi, Gondia