Mumbai, February 13, 2024: The Special Court for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act at Greater Mumbai has rejected the bail application of Imtiyaz Mehboob Shaikh, who was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 77/2023, a case registered by the Anti-Narcotics Cell (ANC), Worli Unit, Mumbai. The accused was allegedly involved in the illegal trafficking of codeine phosphate cough syrup, a regulated narcotic substance under the NDPS Act, 1985.

Background of the Case

During routine patrolling on September 4, 2023, ANC officers found the primary accused, Nezfor Maful SK alias Ali alias Raju, acting suspiciously. Upon searching him, officers recovered 556 bottles of codeine phosphate cough syrup in his possession. The seizure of such a large quantity of a controlled substance raised immediate concerns about drug trafficking.

Subsequent investigations led to the arrest of Imtiyaz Mehboob Shaikh on January 4, 2024, based on the statement of the co-accused, who claimed that he had procured the contraband from Shaikh. The prosecution alleges that Shaikh played a key role in the supply chain of the illicit drug trade.

Court Proceedings and Arguments

Shaikh’s defense, represented by Advocate Poonam Kanade, argued that:

• There was no direct recovery of any narcotic substance from Shaikh.
• The prosecution relied solely on the statement of the co-accused, which is not admissible as primary evidence.
• There was no conclusive evidence establishing a direct link between Shaikh and the illegal drug trade.
• Shaikh is a resident of Mumbai, with no intention of absconding or tampering with evidence.
• He was willing to comply with any conditions imposed by the court.

The defense cited several past judgments, including Sangeeta Y. Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra (2006), Aryan Shah Rukh Khan v. Union of India (2021), Sagar Nana Borkar v. State of Maharashtra (2022), and Abdullah Abdul Salam Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra (2023), to support the argument that bail should be granted in cases where there is no substantial evidence linking the accused directly to the crime.

Prosecution’s Stand

On the other hand, Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Mr. Rajput strongly opposed the bail application, arguing that:

• The investigation clearly established a supply chain, with Shaikh playing a critical role in drug trafficking.
• The Chemical Analysis (CA) report confirmed the presence of codeine phosphate, a Schedule H1 controlled drug.
• The quantity recovered was in the commercial category, making the offense extremely serious under the NDPS Act.
• Section 37 of the NDPS Act places stringent conditions for bail, and Shaikh failed to prove that he was not guilty or that he would not commit a similar offense in the future.
• Shaikh had criminal antecedents, increasing the likelihood that he would re-engage in unlawful activities if released on bail.

Court’s Decision

After considering the arguments from both sides, Hon’ble Special Judge K.P. Kshirsagar (Court Room No. 43) denied Shaikh’s bail plea, stating that:

• The statements of the co-accused, though not conclusive evidence for conviction, are admissible during the investigation and indicate a strong nexus between Shaikh and the illicit drug trade.
• The case falls under the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, where bail cannot be granted unless the court is satisfied that the accused is not guilty and will not repeat the offense.
• The nature and gravity of the offense—trafficking in commercial quantities of narcotics—necessitate strict judicial scrutiny.
• The release of the accused at this stage could jeopardize the investigation, as there is a likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
• The court found no reasonable grounds to believe that Shaikh was innocent of the alleged charges.

Conclusion

With these considerations, the court rejected Shaikh’s bail application, emphasizing that granting bail in serious drug-related offenses would be detrimental to public interest and law enforcement efforts. The case will continue as the prosecution proceeds with its investigation and prepares to file charges against the accused.

This ruling underscores the judiciary’s firm stance on drug trafficking cases, particularly when commercial quantities of banned substances are involved. It also reinforces the application of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which mandates that courts exercise extreme caution while granting bail in such cases.

The case remains under investigation, and further proceedings will determine the final outcome for Imtiyaz Mehboob Shaikh and his alleged role in the drug trafficking network.