Mumbai, February 8, 2024: A special court for the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act in Mumbai has granted bail to Afzal Zulfikar Ansari, an accused in a narcotics-related case registered at Mankhurd police station under C.R. No.01/2024. The bail order was issued by Additional Sessions Judge K.P. Kshirsagar on February 8, 2024, allowing Ansari to be released upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 along with one or more sureties of the same amount.
Case Background
The case originated on January 1, 2024, when officials from Mankhurd police station allegedly found co-accused Sufiyan Liyakatli Khan and Afzal Zulfikar Ansari in suspicious circumstances. Upon conducting a search, law enforcement officers reportedly recovered 15 grams of Mephedrone (MD) from Khan’s possession. Additionally, six bottles of Chlorpheniramine Maleate & Codeine Phosphate syrup (WELCYREX, 100 ml each) were allegedly recovered from Ansari’s possession.
As a result, the accused were booked under sections 8(c) read with 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, which pertain to the illegal possession and distribution of narcotic substances.
Bail Arguments and Court Observations
The defense, represented by Advocate Sherali Khan, argued that this was the first bail application by the accused and that the quantity of drugs recovered did not fall under the “commercial quantity” category. The defense further contended that Ansari had no prior criminal record, had been in custody since January 1, 2024, and that nothing further needed to be recovered from him. Additionally, the defense assured the court that the accused was willing to comply with any conditions imposed upon his release.
The prosecution, represented by APP Mr. Rajput, opposed the bail application, arguing that the accused were highly educated and that their involvement in the crime suggested a deeper nexus. The prosecution also contended that the investigation was ongoing, with a wanted accused still at large, and that granting bail at this stage could hinder the inquiry.
After reviewing the submissions, the court noted that the quantity of drugs recovered from Ansari fell under the “intermediate” category rather than the “commercial” category. Consequently, the stringent conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which restrict bail for serious drug offenses, did not apply in this case.
Court’s Ruling
While granting bail, the court emphasized the importance of personal liberty and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The order stated that the primary purpose of bail is to ensure the presence of the accused at trial rather than to serve as a punitive measure.
Considering the nature of the offense, the accused’s antecedents, and his cooperation during the investigation, the court concluded that his continued detention was unnecessary. However, strict conditions were imposed to ensure compliance with the legal process:
- Cooperation with Investigation: The accused must cooperate with the investigating officer and present himself for interrogation whenever required.
- Non-Tampering of Evidence: The accused must not interfere with prosecution evidence or influence witnesses in any manner.
- Expedited Trial Cooperation: The accused must assist in the swift conclusion of the trial.
- No Further Offenses: The accused must not engage in any criminal activity while out on bail.
- Contact Information Requirement: The accused and his surety must provide their mobile numbers and proof of residence at the time of executing the bail bond.
With these conditions in place, the court ruled that granting bail at this stage would not be detrimental to the ongoing investigation or the interests of society at large.
Legal Implications and Next Steps
The bail order highlights the court’s balanced approach to handling drug-related offenses, particularly in cases where the alleged contraband falls under an intermediate quantity. While the NDPS Act imposes stringent measures for drug-related crimes, the judiciary retains discretion in determining whether an accused poses a threat to society or the investigation process.
Ansari’s release on bail does not imply his acquittal, and he will have to appear for trial proceedings as mandated by the court. The prosecution is expected to continue its investigation, particularly in tracking down the remaining accused.
This case serves as a significant reminder of the legal principles surrounding bail, emphasizing that pre-trial detention should not serve as a punitive measure when the accused has demonstrated willingness to cooperate with the judicial process.
