Mumbai, March 2, 2024 – Moinuddin Mohd. Zubair Khan, accused in a significant Mephedrone (MD) seizure case, has been granted bail by the Special Judge for NDPS Cases at Greater Mumbai. Special Judge B.Y. Phad, presiding over Court Room No. 44, allowed Khan’s bail application (NDPS Bail Application No. 289/2024), citing the inadmissibility of co-accused statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act as per recent Supreme Court rulings.

Khan was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 22 of 2022, registered at the Anti-Narcotics Cell (ANC), Azad Maidan Unit, Mumbai, for offenses under Sections 8(c) read with Section 22(c) (possession of commercial quantity of narcotic drug) and Section 29 (criminal conspiracy) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.

The Allegations and Arrest:

The prosecution alleged that Khan was implicated in the case based on the statement of co-accused No. 1, who was apprehended with 3.110 kilograms of MD. They claimed that Khan was the supplier of the contraband. They also stated that Khan had a prior NDPS case against him.

Defense Arguments:

Khan, through his advocate Zehra Charania, argued that he was falsely implicated and that the only evidence against him was the statement of the co-accused. She emphasized that no recovery was made from Khan and that the co-accused’s statement was inadmissible under recent Supreme Court rulings. She also argued that one previous case should not prevent him from getting bail.

Prosecution’s Objections:

The prosecution, represented by APP Shankar Erande, opposed the bail application, arguing that the co-accused’s memorandum statement implicated Khan and that he was the supplier of the contraband. They expressed concerns about Khan repeating the offense, tampering with evidence, and pressuring witnesses if released.

Court’s Analysis and Decision:

Judge Phad, after considering the submissions, noted that the only evidence against Khan was the statement of the co-accused. He then referred to the Supreme Court rulings in:

• Toofan Singh vs State of Tamil Nadu: Which held that confessional statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are inadmissible in trials under the Act.
• State by (NCB) Bengaluru vs Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr.: Which reinforced the inadmissibility of such statements for overturning bail orders.

Based on these rulings, Judge Phad concluded that the co-accused’s statement alone was insufficient to deprive Khan of his personal liberty and granted him bail.

Conditions of Bail:

The court granted Khan bail on the following conditions:

• He must execute a personal bond of ₹60,000 with one or two solvent sureties of the same amount.
• He must report to the ANC, Azad Maidan Unit, Mumbai, every Sunday between 10:00 AM and 11:00 AM until the framing of charges.
• He is prohibited from leaving the jurisdiction of Mumbai without permission.
• He is prohibited from contacting co-accused, witnesses, or any individuals associated with the case and from tampering with evidence.
• He must maintain a stable residence in Dongri, Mumbai, and inform the court and investigating officer of any change in address or mobile number.
• He must not interfere with the ongoing investigation.
• He must surrender his passport or file an affidavit stating he does not possess one.
• He is prohibited from engaging in activities related to the registered offense.
• He must comply with all reasonable directions from law enforcement.
• He must furnish a list of three blood relatives with their addresses and workplace addresses, along with documentary proof.

Significance of the Order:

This order highlights the significant impact of recent Supreme Court rulings on the admissibility of co-accused statements under the NDPS Act. It emphasizes:

• Inadmissibility of Section 67 Statements: The court’s reliance on the Supreme Court’s rulings underscores the inadmissibility of confessional statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act.
• Importance of Independent Evidence: The ruling reinforces the need for independent evidence beyond co-accused statements to implicate an accused.
• Protection of Personal Liberty: The court prioritized the protection of personal liberty in light of the inadmissibility of the primary evidence against the accused.
• Stringent Bail Conditions: The court imposed stringent bail conditions to ensure the accused’s compliance and prevent any interference with the investigation.