Cri. BA No.1068/2022
..1..

in Spl. LAC No.566/2022
MHCC020060092022
Presented on
Registered on
Decided on
Duration
: 05-05-2022
: 05-05-2022
: 22-06-2022
: 01 month, 17 days
IN THE SPECIAL COURT FOR NARCOTIC DRUG AND
PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985, AT GR. BOMBAY
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1068 OF 2022
IN
SPECIAL L.A.C./C.R. NO.566 OF 2022
Amit Kumar Sahansar Pal Singh
) .. Applicant/Accused
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra
( Through Malwani police station
vide Spl. L.A.C. No.566/2022 )
)
)
) .. Respondent/Prosecution
Appearance :
Ld. Adv. Mr. Himanshu Shinde, for the applicant/accused.
Ld. APP Mr. P.J. Tarange, for the respondent/prosecution.
CORAM : H.H. THE ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE
SHRI V.G. RAGHUWANSHI (C.R.43)
DATE : 22/06/2022
ORAL ORDER
Applicant/accused Amit Kumar Sahansar Pal Singh prays
for releasing him on bail.
2.

He submits that, he was arrested on 24.04.2022 in Special
L.A.C. No.566/2022 for an offence punishable under section 8(c) r/w
section 21(c), 22(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. Applicant/accused
Cri. BA No.1068/2022
..2..

in Spl. LAC No.566/2022
was remanded to police custody and from 30.04.2022 he is in judicial
custody. Applicant/accused further submits that, he has been falsely
implicated in this case. His arrest is illegal. There is no substantial
evidence against him.

He is arrested on basis of statement of co-
accused which is inadmissible in evidence.

He has been falsely
implicated due to personal rivalry. Contraband was not seized from
him.

He is not involved in this offence. Investigating Officer had
sufficient opportunity to interrogate him. He undertakes to co-operate
Investigating Officer and abide by all conditions those may be imposed
by this Court. He is the only bread winner of his family. He prayed
accordingly.
3.

Prosecution
filed
report
of
Investigating
Officer
countersigned by Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor Shri. P.J. Tarange and
resisted this application on the grounds mentioned therein.
4.

I have heard both sides.

5.

It is alleged that, on 23.04.2022, the officers of police
station Malwani were on patrolling.

They saw two persons near
Surabhi Co-op Housing Society located at Jankalyan Nagar, Malwani,
Malad (West). Police intercepted them and found that accused Pramod
Kalicharan Sharma was in possession of 5 grams Mephedrone (MD) and
335 grams double Tiger Heroin. Another accused Mohd. Ismail Mohd.
Nazrul Khan was found in possession of 5 grams Mephedrone (MD).
They were arrested. Thereafter, in the course of investigation they
disclosed
name
of
this
applicant/accused
and
therefore,
this
applicant/accused was also arrested. Ld. Counsel of applicant/accused
submitted that, there was no recovery from this applicant/accused. He
has been falsely implicated on the statement of arrested accused and
Cri. BA No.1068/2022
..3..

in Spl. LAC No.566/2022
the statement of said accused is not admissible in evidence. Therefore,
applicant/accused is entitled to be released on bail.
The Ld. Advocate for the applicant/accused relied upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State Vs. Pallulabid
Ahmad Arimutta and Anr., AIR Online 2022 SC 130.
On the other hand, Shri. P.J. Tarange, Ld. Additional Public
Prosecutor drew my attention towards the report submitted by the
Investigating Officer. He pointed out that, 5 grams Mephedrone (MD)
and 335 grams double Tiger Heroin seized from Pramod Sharma.
Heroin was seized in commercial quantity from said accused.

He
further pointed out that 5 grams Mephedrone was seized from Mohd.
Ismail Mohd. Nazrul Khan.

He further pointed out that, accused
Pramod Sharma told Investigating Officer that, he brought contraband
from present applicant/accused. Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor Shri.
P.J. Tarange submitted that, the applicant/accused Amit Kumar
Sahansar Pal Singh is a police man of Uttar Pradesh police. In spite of
such position he is indulging in such offences. Police intend to search
from where applicant/accused procured these contrabands. At this stage
investigation is not completed. He prayed for rejecting this application.
Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor relied upon the following
judgments/orders.

(i) The order of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in
Criminal Bail Application No.3041/2021 dated
15.11.2021 between Mr. Mohammed Aun
Javed Haider Sayed Vs. Union of India.
(ii) The order of the Hon’ble Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur
High Court in MCRC No.7850/2020 between
Sambhav Parakh S/o Late Shri Rajesh Parakh
Vs. State of Chhattisgarh.

Cri. BA No.1068/2022
6.

..4..

in Spl. LAC No.566/2022
In this matter allegedly 5 grams Mephedrone and 335
grams double Tiger Heroin whereas seized from accused Pramod
Sharma and 5 grams Mephedrone was seized from accused Mohd.
Ismail Mohd. Nazrul Khan. There is no dispute that, nothing was seized
from this applicant/accused.

Ld. Public Prosecutor submits that,
prosecution desires to collect evidence against this applicant/accused
and search whether other persons are involved in this offence. But
enough opportunity was granted to Investigating Officer to interrogate
this applicant/accused. The date of offence is 22.04.2022 and therefore,
Investigating Officer had enough time to make investigation in this
direction also. The Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur in the
case of “Sambhav Parekh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh” (supra) held that
“when commercial quantity of illicit psychotropic substance is recovered
from one accused, in view of section 29 of NDPS Act, such other
accused from whom no recovery has been made are also not entitled for
bail as they have major link in the entire operation and have taken part
in drug peddling and allowed consumption in their premises.”
7.

Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the matter of “Mohammed
Aun Javed Haider Sayed Vs. Union of India” (supra) held that
“However, merely because nothing has been seized from the applicant
will not absolve him of the allegations, particularly having regard to the
presence of evidence about conspiracy, recovery of commercial quantity
of drugs from the co-accused with whom the applicant was having close
acquaintance and monetary transaction.”
It appears from perusal of
these both judgments that there was an evidence in addition to
statement of another accused recorded under section 67 of the NDPS
Act to infer involvement of applicant/accused in the said crime.
However, in case in my hand there is no other evidence suggesting
involvement of applicant/accused in this offence. The Hon’ble Apex
Cri. BA No.1068/2022
..5..

in Spl. LAC No.566/2022
Court in a similar matter of “State Vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta and
Anr.” (supra) observed that,
“9. Having gone through the records alongwith
the tabulated statement of the respondents
submitted on behalf of the petitioner-NCB and
on carefully perusing the impugned orders
passed in each case, it emerges that except for
the voluntary statements of A-1 and A-2 in the
first case and that of the respondents
themselves recorded under Section 67 of the
NDPS Act, it appears, prima facie, that no
substantial material was available with the
prosecution at the time of arrest to connect the
respondents with the allegations levelled
against them of indulging in drug trafficking. It
has not been denied by the prosecution that
except for the respondent in SLP (Crl.) No.
1569/2021, none of the other respondents were
found to be in possession of commercial
quantities of psychotropic substances, as
contemplated under the NDPS Act.”
“10. It has been held in clear terms in Tofan
Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, that a
confessional statement recorded under Section
67 of the NDPS Act will remain inadmissible in
the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. In
the teeth of the aforesaid decision, the arrests
made by the petitioner-NCB, on the basis of the
confession/voluntary
statements
of
the
respondents or the co-accused under Section 67
of the NDPS Act, cannot form the basis for
overturning the impugned orders releasing
them on bail. The CDR details of some of the
accused or the allegations of tampering of
evidence on the part of one of the respondents
is an aspect that will be examined at the stage
Cri. BA No.1068/2022
..6..

in Spl. LAC No.566/2022
of trial. For the aforesaid reason, this Court is
not inclined to interfere in the orders dated 16
th September, 2019, 14th January, 2020, 16th
January, 2020, 19th December, 2019 and 20th
January, 2020 passed in SLP (Crl.) No@ Diary
No. 22702/2020, SLP (Crl.) No. 1454/2021,
SLP (Crl.) No. 1465/2021, SLP (Crl.) No. 17734/2021 and SLP (Crl.) No. 2080/2021
respectively. The impugned orders are,
accordingly, upheld and the Special Leave
Petitions filed by the petitioner-NCB seeking
cancellation of bail granted to the respective
respondents, are dismissed as meritless.”
8.

Thus, in view of the fact that, the applicant/accused is
arrested only on the basis of statement of another accused, there is no
recovery of any contraband from the applicant/accused and there is no
other
independent
evidence
suggesting
involvement
of
this
applicant/accused in said crime. Hence, this application deserves to be
allowed. With this I proceed to pass following order.
ORDER
1. Criminal
Bail
Application
No.1068/2022
in
Special
L.A.C.

No.566/2022, is allowed.
2. Applicant/accused Amit Kumar Sahansar Pal Singh, is released in
Special L.A.C. No.566/2022 on executing P. R. Bond of Rs.25,000/(Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only) with one or more solvent sureties
in the like amount, on following conditions.
3. Applicant/accused shall not indulge any activity which shall hamper
the course of investigation and he shall appear before Trial Court
regularly.
4. Applicant/accused shall not tamper with evidence of prosecution.

Cri. BA No.1068/2022
..7..

in Spl. LAC No.566/2022
5. Applicant/accused shall appear before the Investigating Officer once in a
week till filing of charge-sheet.
6. Application stands disposed off accordingly.
(Pronounced in open Court)
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
GOVINDSINGH
VIJAY
GOVINDSINGH RAGHUWANSHI
RAGHUWANSHI Date:
2022.06.23
17:21:19 +0530
Date : 22/06/2022.

Dictated on
Typed on
Signed on
: 22/06/2022
: 22/06/2022
: 22/06/2022
(V.G. Raghuwanshi)
N.D.P.S Special Judge
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay (CR.43)
Cri. BA No.1068/2022
..8..

in Spl. LAC No.566/2022
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE
23.06.2022
TIME
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
05.20 p.m.

Sanjay Baliram Kaskar
(Stenographer Grade-I)
Name of the Judge
H.H.J. SHRI. V.G. RAGHUWANSHI
(C.R.No.43) NDPS Spl. Judge
Date of Pronouncement of
Judgment/Order.

22/06/2022
Judgment/order signed by P.O on
22/06/2022
Judgment/order uploaded on
23/06/2022