In a notable case regarding narcotics trafficking, a Mumbai Special Court for the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), has rejected the bail application of 49-year-old Vivek Gulabchand Chaube. Chaube, a resident of Kandivali, Mumbai, was arrested by the Anti-Narcotics Cell (ANC) of Kandivali for his alleged involvement in drug trafficking. He was charged under sections 8(c), 20(c), and 29 of the NDPS Act, which pertain to the illegal possession, distribution, and conspiracy of narcotic drugs.
Case Background and Details of Arrest
The case, recorded under C.R. No.105/2023, came to light on December 30, 2023, when co-accused Shankar Teji Patel and Avinash Ravindra Bedekar were apprehended in Mumbai under suspicious circumstances. During their search, authorities discovered 150 grams and 40 grams of charas (cannabis resin) in their respective possessions. The investigation, spearheaded by the ANC’s Kandivali Unit, revealed additional connections in the case. Bedekar, during questioning, disclosed that he had procured the contraband from a third co-accused, Tunir Vijay Mulik.
Upon his arrest, Mulik was found in possession of 750 grams of charas. The investigation further revealed that Mulik had allegedly obtained the drugs from Chaube, who was subsequently arrested. Authorities reportedly seized 500 grams of charas from Chaube’s possession. The total amount of contraband seized from all the accused totaled a substantial quantity, qualifying as “commercial quantity” under the NDPS Act.
Court Proceedings and Defense Arguments
During the court proceedings, Chaube’s defense, represented by Advocate Himanshu Shinde, argued that there was insufficient evidence linking Chaube to the narcotics conspiracy. The defense emphasized that only intermediate quantities of contraband were found in Chaube’s possession, not meeting the threshold for “commercial quantity.” Chaube, a local driver, was presented as a non-violent individual with no prior criminal record. His lawyer stressed that he would abide by any conditions the court imposed and posed no threat to the investigation or society if released on bail.
The defense also cited a precedent from the Bombay High Court, in which the court granted bail under similar circumstances, arguing that the facts of Chaube’s case were comparable.
Prosecution’s Position and Court’s Response
In response, the Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Tarange, argued against the bail, highlighting the significant quantity of charas involved and Chaube’s alleged role in the supply chain. The prosecution contended that the statement of Mulik, a co-accused, directly implicated Chaube as a supplier of narcotics. They argued that Chaube’s release could hinder the ongoing investigation and present a potential risk to witnesses or lead to the tampering of evidence.
Special Judge K.P. Kshirsagar presided over the proceedings and evaluated the arguments and evidence presented by both sides. In the court’s oral order, Judge Kshirsagar concluded that while Chaube had argued there was no direct evidence of his involvement, the cumulative quantity of charas recovered from the accused met the “commercial quantity” standard. Under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the judge noted that the law placed stringent restrictions on bail in narcotics cases involving such quantities.
Judge Kshirsagar pointed out that to secure bail under Section 37, Chaube was required to demonstrate “reasonable grounds” that he was not guilty and that he would not commit a similar offense. In the court’s view, Chaube failed to meet this burden. The judge emphasized that the NDPS Act’s strict bail provisions are designed to deter drug-related crimes and protect public welfare. Given the cumulative amount of contraband, the accused’s potential involvement in a drug trafficking network, and concerns about the influence on ongoing investigations, the court found no grounds to lift the bail restrictions.
Final Judgment and Implications
Judge Kshirsagar’s order read: “On prima facie appreciation of the material on record and considering the nature of the offense, gravity of the offense, there appear no justifiable grounds for releasing applicant/accused on bail at this stage.”
Thus, the court denied Chaube’s bail application on March 11, 2024. This decision underscores the judiciary’s rigorous approach in narcotics cases, particularly when dealing with suspected supply chains and commercial quantities of illegal drugs. The ruling reflects the broader trend within the Indian judiciary to enforce strict bail conditions for narcotics-related offenses, especially under the NDPS Act, to discourage the spread of drug trafficking networks in major urban centers.
The case remains under investigation, and further court proceedings will determine the fates of Chaube and the other accused individuals. This bail rejection sends a strong message about the NDPS Act’s potency and the judiciary’s stance on narcotics crimes, particularly in high-density metropolitan areas like Mumbai where drug trafficking presents significant societal challenges.
