Mumbai, Maharashtra – May 5, 2022 – A Mumbai Special NDPS Court has granted bail to Feroz Noor Mohammed Shaikh, accused of possessing Mephedrone (MD). The court, presided over by Special Judge V.V. Patil, granted bail after concluding that the recovered quantity of MD was non-commercial and that there was a lack of prima facie evidence to support the prosecution’s claim of a conspiracy.

Feroz Noor Mohammed Shaikh (34) was arrested on April 1, 2022, by Dharavi Police Station in connection with C.R. No. 277/2022, for offenses punishable under sections 8(c) read with 21(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.

Details of the Arrest and Allegations:

According to the prosecution, on April 1, 2022, police received information about the sale of MD at Sant Gora Kumbhar Marg, Dharavi. A raid was conducted, during which Shaikh and three other individuals were apprehended. Shaikh was found in possession of 5.3 grams of MD.

Arguments Presented During the Bail Hearing:

Shaikh’s advocates, Mr. Sarpande and Mr. Vikas Chavan, argued that the quantity of MD recovered was non-commercial, rendering the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act inapplicable. They also argued that there was non-compliance with Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act and that Shaikh was a permanent resident of Mumbai, willing to abide by any conditions imposed by the court.

The prosecution, represented by Ld. APP Mr. Rajput, opposed the bail application, asserting that Shaikh and the other accused were part of a conspiracy to sell MD, invoking Section 29 of the NDPS Act. They expressed concerns about Shaikh engaging in similar offenses and absconding if released.

Court’s Reasoning and Decision:

Judge Patil, after reviewing the case records and hearing both sides, acknowledged that the recovered quantity of MD from Shaikh was non-commercial.

“Now, admittedly the alleged recovery of contraband MD from each of the accused falls under category of non-commercial quantity and therefore, stringent provisions of sec. 37 of NDPS Act would not apply,” Judge Patil stated in the order.

The court also found that there was no prima facie evidence to support the prosecution’s claim of a conspiracy under Section 29 of the NDPS Act.

“Thought prosecution claimed that all accused acted in conspiracy and hence sec.29 of the NDPS Act is invoked, at this stage there is no prima-facie evidence placed on record by the prosecution showing that all the accused hatched conspiracy with each other in commission of offence,” Judge Patil noted.

The court emphasized that the recovery of the contraband was complete, Shaikh was a permanent resident of Mumbai with no criminal antecedents, and he was willing to abide by the court’s conditions.

“Further recovery has been completed and nothing is remained to be recovered. As submitted on behalf of applicant, he is permanent resident of Mumbai and he has no criminal antecedents. Also, he is ready to abide by all the terms and conditions imposed by the Court. Hence I hold that applicant is entitled to be released on bail,” Judge Patil stated.

Conditions of Bail:

The court granted bail to Shaikh on a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one or two sureties of the same amount, subject to the following conditions:

• He must attend Dharavi Police Station every Monday between 1:00 PM and 4:00 PM until the filing of the charge sheet.
• He and his sureties must provide their mobile numbers and correct residential addresses, along with the names, mobile numbers, and addresses of two relatives.
• He must provide proof of identity and residence at the time of executing the bail bond.
• He must not tamper with prosecution witnesses or evidence and must cooperate in the early disposal of the trial.
• He must not commit similar offenses while on bail.
• Provisional cash bail of Rs. 20,000 was allowed for eight weeks.

Implications of the Decision:

This decision underscores the court’s adherence to the specific provisions of the NDPS Act, particularly regarding non-commercial quantities of contraband. It also highlights the importance of providing concrete evidence to support claims of conspiracy. The court’s ruling emphasizes the principle of personal liberty within the framework of drug law enforcement.