Mumbai, Maharashtra – October 30, 2023 – A Special Court for Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act in Greater Bombay has rejected the bail application of Nishikant Devnarayan Dhardwivedi, a 34-year-old resident of Sangharsh Nagar, Mumbai, who is implicated in a significant drug seizure case. The order, dated October 27, 2023, details the court’s rationale for denying bail to the accused.

Dhardwivedi was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 69/2023, registered at the ANC Azad Maidan Unit in Mumbai. He is accused of offenses punishable under sections 8(c) read with 21(c), 22(c), and 29 of the Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.

Accused Implicated Through Co-accused Statements

According to the prosecution’s case, a substantial quantity of contraband was seized from a co-accused, Umar Nadeem Mohamed Madni Siddiqui. This included 4200 bottles of Codeine Phosphate & Chlorpheniramine Maleate syrup (100 ml each) and 900 tablets of Nitrazepam Tablets IP Nitravet-10.

The co-accused allegedly disclosed that the Codeine Phosphate syrup was supplied by co-accused Nos. 4 and 5, while the Nitrazepam tablets were supplied by the present applicant, Nishikant Dhardwivedi. Based on this statement, Dhardwivedi was arrested and charged under the NDPS Act.

Applicant Claims Intermediate Quantity and Lack of Nexus

Seeking bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Dhardwivedi, represented by Ld. Adv. Mr. Ramesh Mishra, argued that this was his first bail application and no other similar application was pending. His counsel contended that the quantity of Nitrazepam tablets allegedly supplied by him was of an “intermediate quantity,” thus not attracting the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which imposes stricter conditions for bail in cases involving commercial quantities.

The applicant further argued that there was no concrete evidence or material on record establishing a direct link or “nexus” between him and the co-accused from whom the drugs were seized. He emphasized that he is a resident of Mumbai and was willing to abide by any terms and conditions imposed by the court if granted bail.

Prosecution Highlights Commercial Quantity and Drug Peddling

Opposing the bail application, Ld. APP Mr. P.J. Tarange argued that a commercial quantity of contraband was recovered from the main co-accused. He stated that during the investigation, the co-accused explicitly disclosed procuring the Nitrazepam tablets, a psychotropic substance, from Dhardwivedi.

The prosecution further claimed that another co-accused had identified Dhardwivedi, and that 375 tablets of Alprazolam were also recovered from his possession. The investigation, according to the prosecution, revealed that Dhardwivedi was a drug peddler. They also stated that Dhardwivedi had disclosed that a wanted accused had supplied him with the recovered contraband. The Chemical Analyzer (CA) report for the seized substances was confirmed to be positive.

The prosecution asserted that there was a clear nexus between Dhardwivedi, the co-accused, and the wanted accused, and that releasing him on bail at this stage could hamper the ongoing investigation.

Court Finds Prima Facie Involvement and Applicability of Section 37

K.P. Kshirsagar, Additional Sessions Judge, presiding over the Special Court, carefully considered the arguments and the material on record. The court noted that Dhardwivedi was accused of offenses that could attract imprisonment up to 20 years and a fine of up to one lakh rupees.

The court highlighted that a commercial quantity of contraband was recovered in the case. Based on a preliminary assessment of the evidence, the court found prima facie indications that Dhardwivedi was involved in the sale of contraband, labeling him as a “drug peddler.” The court also noted that the statement of a co-accused is admissible for the purpose of investigation. The recovery of Alprazolam tablets from Dhardwivedi further strengthened the prosecution’s case at this stage.

The court explicitly stated that there appeared to be substance in the contention that there was a nexus and a conspiracy between Dhardwivedi, the co-accused, and the wanted accused.

Investigation Incomplete and Risk of Tampering

The court acknowledged that the investigation concerning Dhardwivedi was still ongoing. It found no reason to doubt the genuineness of the prosecution’s case at this stage.

Considering the nature of the offense, the court opined that there was a possibility that if released on bail, Dhardwivedi could tamper with or influence prosecution witnesses or become involved in similar offenses. Furthermore, given the quantity of contraband seized and the circumstances of the case, the court believed that releasing Dhardwivedi could prejudice a fair and full investigation.

Crucially, the court determined that because a commercial quantity of contraband was recovered in the case, the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act were applicable. This section imposes limitations on granting bail unless the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offense¹ and that he is not likely to commit any offense while on bail. The² court found that Dhardwivedi had failed to demonstrate these grounds.

Active Role and Heinous Nature of Offense

The court further observed that the accusations and the prima facie material suggested that Dhardwivedi had played an “active role” in the alleged drug trafficking. The offense was deemed to be of a “heinous nature.” The investigation carried out so far indicated his involvement in drug peddling and his connection with the co-accused. The court stated that a high degree of evidence was not required at this stage to establish conspiracy, and that prima facie, Dhardwivedi had failed to demonstrate his non-involvement in the crime.

Bail Rejected in the Interest of Society

Concluding its order, the court stated that considering the aforementioned facts, discussions, and the preliminary assessment of the evidence, releasing Dhardwivedi at this stage was likely to be prejudicial to the larger interests of society. The court also noted that a liberal approach in granting bail for such offenses under the NDPS Act was unwarranted.

Based on the nature and gravity of the offense and the fact that the investigation was still incomplete, the court found no justifiable grounds to release Dhardwivedi on bail. Consequently, NDPS Bail Application No. 782/2023 was rejected.