Mumbai, July 7, 2022 – The Special Court for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, at Greater Bombay, rejected the bail application of Rakesh Gorakh Nimonkar, accused in a case involving the possession and sale of Ganja. The court cited the commercial quantity of the seized Ganja, the alleged conspiracy between the accused, and the applicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act as reasons for denying bail.

Nimonkar, along with co-accused, was arrested in connection with Crime No. 90/2022, registered at ANC Azad Maidan Unit, for offenses punishable under Sections 8(c), 20, and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985.

According to the prosecution, on April 30, 2022, police officers apprehended Nimonkar and another accused, seizing 10 kg of Ganja (5 kg from each). During the investigation, the accused revealed the name of a third accused, Ganesh Prakash Golesir, from whom more than 61 kg of Ganja was recovered.

Nimonkar, through his advocate S.R. Patil, sought bail, arguing that the quantity of Ganja seized from him individually was less than commercial quantity, thus not attracting the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. He also contended that the contraband was not seized directly from him, the investigation was complete, and there was no evidence of a conspiracy. He relied on a judgment of the Bombay High Court in Sangeeta Y. Gaikwad Vs. The State of Maharashtra to support his argument that bail can be granted even when a substantial quantity of narcotics is involved.

The prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) P.J. Tarange, opposed the bail, arguing that the total quantity of Ganja recovered, including that seized from the third accused, was of commercial quantity, indicating a conspiracy. They cited judgments of the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Ram Samujh and Anr. and the Bombay High Court in Rhea Chakraborty Vs. Union of India to emphasize the seriousness of the offense and its consequences on society.

Judge V.G. Raghuwanshi, after considering the submissions, noted that the information provided by Nimonkar led to the arrest of the third accused and the recovery of a significant quantity of Ganja. The court concluded that this established a conspiracy to sell Ganja, making the total quantity of seized contraband commercial.

“Facts of the case reveal that, both accused Nos.1 and 2 were selling said contraband. There is substance in the argument that merely because two accused persons purchased Ganja from common seller (accused No.3) that cannot lead anyone to conclude that there was conspiracy between all three accused. But one thing is clear that, on information given by the applicant/accused, accused No.3 was arrested and there is an independent evidence to show that, he was also indulging in such activity. This is also conspiracy to sale Ganja and therefore, total amount of Ganja seized is more than commercial quantity and section 37 of the NDPS Act will be attracted in this case,” Judge Raghuwanshi stated in his order.

The court also found that there was no material to believe that Nimonkar was not guilty or that he would not commit further offenses if released on bail.

“At this stage there is no material on record to believe that, applicant/accused is not guilty of such offence and he will not commit any offence while on bail and therefore, this is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant/accused,” Judge Raghuwanshi ruled.

Consequently, the court rejected Nimonkar’s bail application. The order was dictated on July 5, 2022, typed on July 6, 2022, signed on July 7, 2022, and uploaded on the same day at 3:07 PM, as certified by stenographer Sanjay Baliram Kaskar.

This ruling highlights the judiciary’s strict approach in NDPS cases, particularly when commercial quantities of narcotics are involved and there is evidence of conspiracy. It also underscores the application of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which imposes stringent conditions for granting bail in such cases.