Sajid Mohammad Yunus Ansari vs State of Maharashtra

¶1

20-BA-5133-2024.DOC

¶2

Shivgan

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 5133 of 2024

¶6

Sajid Mohammad Yunus Ansari ...Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶7

Mr. Sherali S Khan , with Azfar Khan, for the Applicant. Mr Yogesh Y Dabke , APP for the State-Respondent. Mr. Patil , PSI attached to ANC, Kandivali Unit, present.

¶8

CORAM Dr. Neela Gokhale, J. DATED: 10^th NOVEMBER 2025

¶9

PC:-

¶10

1. The Applicant seeks his release on bail in connection with FIR No.79 of 2023 dated 8^th September 2023 registered with the ANC, Kandivali Unit, Mumbai, for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) and 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act’ for short).

¶11

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 7^th September 2023, while police personnel were on patrolling

¶12

Page 1 of 6 10^th November 2025

¶13

20-BA-5133-2024.DOC

¶14

duty, they found one person lurking in suspicious manner. When the police accosted him, he tried to flee from the spot and hence, he was apprehended. After complying with the statutory provisions under the NDPS Act, the Applicant was searched and he was found to be in possession 65 gms of Mephedrone (‘MD’). Hence, he was arrested pursuant to the FIR registered by the police.

¶15

3. The Applicant made an application seeking bail before the Special Judge (NDPS), City Civil & Sessions Court, Greater Bombay, however, by an order dated 26^th September, 2024, the same came be rejected. Hence, the Applicant is before this Court for the reliefs as prayed.

¶16

4. Mr. Sherali Khan, learned counsel appearing for the Applicant, submits that apart from the fact that there is no material on record to disclose involvement of the Applicant in the said offence, the Applicant was arrested on 8^th September 2023 and the charge is framed only on 17^th October 2025. He

¶17

Page 2 of 6 10^th November 2025

¶18

20-BA-5133-2024.DOC

¶19

further submits that on this sole ground of long incarceration, the Applicant deserved to be enlarged on bail.

¶20

5. Per contra, Mr. Yogesh Dabke, learned APP representing the State in the matter, submits that commercial quantity of MD was recovered from the person of the Applicant; the Applicant is not co-operating in conducting the trial and he is likely to commit similar type of offences, if granted bail. He further submits that the prosecution intends to examine as many as 8 witnesses and the trial is likely to conclude in a foreseeable future. Hence, he submits that the Bail Application be rejected.

¶21

6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the record with their assistance.

¶22

7. Admittedly, the Applicant has suffered incarceration for a period of more than 2 years and the charges are framed only recently, i.e., in October, 2025. Additionally, the Applicant has no criminal antecedents against him. In a series of judgments,

¶23

Page 3 of 6 10^th November 2025

¶24

20-BA-5133-2024.DOC

¶25

the Supreme Court has observed that long 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 of the NDPS Act, 1985 may, in such circumstances, be considered. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of long incarceration of the Applicant without there being any real possibility of early completion of the trial, I am inclined to accept the plea of the Applicant and enlarge him on bail. Hence, the following order is passed:

¶26

ORDER

¶27

i) The Applicant be enlarged on bail, on

¶28

executing PR Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/ with one or two local sureties in the like amount;

¶29

ii) The Applicant shall attend the Trial Court concerned on each and every date unless exempted by the orders of the Trial Court concerned;

¶30

Page 4 of 6 10^th November 2025

¶31

20-BA-5133-2024.DOC

¶32

iii) If the Applicant has not deposited his passport, the Applicant shall deposit the same with the concerned Police Station, if any;

¶33

iv) The Applicant shall not leave India, without the permission of the Trial Court;

¶34

v) The Applicant shall not tamper or attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case;

¶35

vi) The 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 Court seized of the matter and to the Investigating Officer of the concerned Police Station;

¶36

vii) The Applicant to co-operate with the conduct of the trial;

¶37

Page 5 of 6 10^th November 2025

¶38

20-BA-5133-2024.DOC

¶39

viii) Any infraction of the aforesaid conditions

¶40

shall entail cancellation of bail.

¶41

8. Application is allowed in the above terms and is accordingly disposed of.

¶42

9. It is made clear that the observations made herein are

¶43

prima facie and are confined to this Application and the learned Trial Judge to decide the case on its own merits, uninfluenced by the observations made herein.

¶44

(Dr. Neela Gokhale, J)

¶45

Digitally signed by SHAMBHAVI SHAMBHAVI NILESH NILESH SHIVGAN SHIVGAN Date: 2025.11.10 19:47:10 +0530

¶46

Page 6 of 6 10^th November 2025

Sajid Mohammad Yunus Ansari v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajid Mohammad Yunus Ansari v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Raffiuddin Zamruddin Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra

Afzal Zainuddin Sarang vs State of Maharashtra

Prem Suresh Ulendala @ Chotu vs State of Maharashtra

Shahjadi Miraj Shaikh @ Papa vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ashraf Lalmohammad Ansari vs State of Maharashtra

Vaibhav Mishra vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.