Dismissed¶21

Mohammad Wasim Qureshi S/O Mohammad Shafi Qureshi v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC29 Jan 2025BA/3223/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail rejected; NDPS Act 1985 Ss. 20(b), 20(b)(ii), 8(c) and S. 37 commercial-quantity bar; 61 Kg. 200 Gms. Ganja seized 05.03.2024; Crime No. 106/2024 Panvel City Police Station; prima facie compliance of mandatory provisions; hired-driver defence; car owner statement of Jayesh Dattataram Koli; applicant Mohammad Wasim Qureshi; State of Maharashtra; High Court of Bombay, Criminal Bail Application No. 3223 of 2024.

What did the court decide?

On perusal of the statement of car owner Jayesh Dattataram Koli, the court recorded that the car was hired by the present applicant. ¶20

Mohammad Wasim Qureshi S/O Mohammad Shafi Qureshi vs State… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Bombay HC (2025)

¶1

23-BA-3223-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3223 OF 2024

¶4

Mohammad Wasim Qureshi S/o Mohammad Shafi Qureshi

¶5

...Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶8

Mr. Hamza Lakdawala a/w Mr. Mohammad Najmi, Mr. Yogendra Koli, Advocate for the Applicant.

¶9

Mr. Vinod Chate, A.P.P. for the Respondent – State.

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

This is an application for regular bail.

¶12

The applicant came to be arrested in Crime No. 106 of 2024 registered at Panvel City Police Station, District : Navi Mumbai for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b), 20(b)(ii) and 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

¶13

On the basis of the secret information, on 05.03.2024, the car of the present applicant was intercepted and the applicant was found in possession of 61 Kg. 200 Gms. of Ganja.

¶14

Digitally signed by SAJAKALI SAJAKALI LIYAKAT LIYAKAT JAMADAR JAMADAR Date:2025.02.22 12:49:32 +0530

1 of 2

Sajakali Jamadar

23-BA-3223-2024.doc

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has nothing to do with the alleged contraband. It is submitted that he was hired as a driver of the car in question. It is further submitted that there is non-compliance of the mandatory provisions. It is further submitted that the applicant is in jail for approximately nine months and there are no criminal antecedents against him.

¶19

On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. submits that there is a statement of the car owner which shows that the car in question was hired by the present applicant. It is submitted that the present case is of commercial quantity and in such cases there is a bar to grant bail unless the conditions mentioned u/s 37 of the NDPS Act are satisfied.

¶20

I have perused the statement of the car owner Jayesh Dattataram Koli. He has stated that car was hired by the present applicant. Prima facie there appears to be compliance of all mandatory provisions under the NDPS Act. I am therefore not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

¶21

The application is rejected and stands disposed of accordingly.

¶22

2 of 2

¶23

Sajakali Jamadar

Mohammad Wasim Qureshi S/O Mohammad Shafi Qureshi v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Wasim Qureshi S/O Mohammad Shafi Qureshi v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shuaib Qamar Khan vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Balaji @ Bablu Laxman Chavan vs the State of Maharashtra

Pratima Pandey vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Balaji @ Bablu Laxman Chavan vs the State of Maharashtra

Arjun Sudam Mulane vs State of Maharashtra

Sandip Pandurang Aadhtrao vs State of Maharashtra