Hazrat Ali Rehman Ali Khan vs State of Maharashtra

The Applicant seeks bail in connection with Crime No. 0588 of 2025, dated 30^th July 2025 registered with Byculla Police Station, Brihanmumbai Shahar for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) and 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act’).

¶11

In short, it is the case of the prosecution that on 30^th July 2025, while on patrolling duty, Accused No.1 came to be apprehended. From him, there is a recovery of commercial quantity of Mephedrone (‘MD’) and Charas. Insofar as the present Applicant is concerned, he came to be arrested on the basis of a statement made by the Co-accused. He was already in custody in Crime No.88 of 2025 registered with the Anti-Narcotic Cell, Azad

¶12

Page 1 of 3 5^th May, 2026.

¶13

44-BA-1020-2026.DOC

¶14

Maidan, and from there, his custody is sought in the present case. Since 21^st October 2025, he is in jail.

¶15

Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that except for the statement of the Co-accused recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, there is absolutely no evidence in order to connect the Applicant with the crime in question. It is her submission that the said statement of the Co-accused is not admissible in evidence during trial and, as such, it can not relied upon even at this stage.

¶16

The learned APP opposes the Application by citing seriousness of the Crime. It is his contention that from the Coaccused, a commercial quantity of contraband has been seized and as such, the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would apply to the present case. He also opposes the bail by submitting that one more crime is registered against the Applicant being Crime No.88 of 2025 registered with the Anti-narcotic Cell, Azad Maidan.

¶17

Needless to say, that the statement of a Co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is not evidence, which can be relied upon during the course of trial. A perusal of the charge-sheet except for the said statement, there is absolutely no evidence in order to connect the Applicant with this crime. Thus, there is a reason to believe that the Applicant has not committed the crime in question. Merely because there is one antecedent against the Applicant, there is no presumption that if enlarged on bail, the Applicant would commit a similar crime. Hence, following order:

¶18

Page 2 of 3 5^th May, 2026.

¶19

44-BA-1020-2026.DOC

¶20

ORDER

¶21

(i) The Bail Application stands allowed in connection with Crime No. 0588 of 2025, dated 30^th July 2025 registered with Byculla Police Station, Brihanmumbai Shahar;

¶22

(ii) The Applicant be released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court;

¶23

(iii) The Applicant not to interfere into the evidence of the prosecution in any manner whatsoever;

¶24

(iv) The Applicant to attend all the dates of hearing before the Trial Court except exempted by a specific order by the Trial Court;

¶25

(v) It is made clear that the observations made herein are 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.

¶26

6. The Bail Application stands disposed of.

¶27

(R. M. JOSHI, J.)

¶28

SHAMBHAVI NILESH SHIVGAN

¶29

Digitally signed by SHAMBHAVI NILESH SHIVGAN Date: 2026.05.06 13:12:32 +0530

¶30

Page 3 of 3 5^th May, 2026.

Hazrat Ali Rehman Ali Khan v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hazrat Ali Rehman Ali Khan 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

Yusuf Ghasita Khan Alias Yusuf Usman Mansuri vs the State of Maharashtra

Anil Gangaram Gore vs the State of Maharashtra

Rakesh Ramnarayan Yadav vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Surekha Gulabrao Chimkar vs the State of Maharashtra

Suryadeep Malhotra vs Union of India

Jitendra Shriram Yadav vs the State of Maharashtra