Mumbai, April 9, 2025 (Thane Location Insight): A Special Court for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) cases in Greater Mumbai has granted bail to Pradeep Naresh Pujari, a 24-year-old resident of Ghatkopar, who was arrested in connection with the possession of 2 grams of MDMA (Methylenedioxymethamphetamine), commonly known as ecstasy or molly. The order, dated March 6, 2024, was recently made available, detailing the conditions under which Pujari was granted relief.
Pujari was apprehended by the Pant Nagar Police Station on December 12, 2023, while on patrolling duty. According to the prosecution’s case, he was found acting suspiciously, leading to a search where the contraband was allegedly recovered. Subsequently, Crime No. 184/2023 was registered against him under Sections 8(c) read with 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
In his bail application (CRI. BAIL APPLICATION NO. 347/2024), Pujari, represented by Advocate Himanshu Shinde, argued that he was falsely implicated in the case and that no recovery was made directly from him. Crucially, the application highlighted that the alleged quantity of 2 grams of MDMA falls under the category of a “non-commercial quantity” as defined under the NDPS Act. This distinction is significant as Section 37 of the Act, which imposes stringent conditions for bail in cases involving commercial quantities, would not be applicable.
The application further emphasized Pujari’s clean criminal record, his belonging to a respectable family, and his role as the sole earning member. It was also brought to the court’s attention that the final report (charge-sheet) had already been filed before the Magistrate Court, suggesting that the investigation was largely complete. The defense also pointed out the absence of any independent witnesses examined by the prosecution. Pujari, a permanent resident of Mumbai, expressed his willingness to furnish the required surety and abide by all conditions imposed by the court.
The prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Mr. Shankar Erande, vehemently opposed the bail application. In their reply submitted to the court, the Investigating Officer detailed the circumstances of Pujari’s apprehension and the alleged recovery of 2 grams of MDMA. The prosecution argued that if released on bail, Pujari was likely to repeat the commission of such crimes, tamper with evidence, and pressurize witnesses. They also mentioned that while the charge-sheet had been filed, some “wanted accused” were yet to be arrested, implying an ongoing aspect to the investigation.
However, the Special Judge, B. Y. Phad (C.R.44), after considering the submissions from both sides, ruled in favor of granting bail to Pradeep Naresh Pujari. The court’s order explicitly noted the crucial fact that the quantity of MDMA allegedly recovered (2 grams) was significantly less than the commercial quantity stipulated under the NDPS Act. The court also took into account Pujari’s clean antecedents and his permanent residence in Mumbai.
Acknowledging the seriousness of the offense, the court imposed stringent conditions on Pujari’s bail to ensure his presence during the trial and to prevent any potential obstruction of justice. The operative part of the order states:
ORDER:
- Bail Application No. 347/2024 is hereby allowed.
- The applicant/accused Pradeep Naresh Pujari, arrested in Crime No. 184/2024, shall be released on bail upon executing a personal bond of Rs.60,000/− and one or two solvent sureties of the like amount, on the following conditions: a. The applicant/accused is directed to report to Pant Nagar Police Station every Sunday between 10.00 a.m. to 11.00 a.m., till the filing of the final report without fail.b. The applicant/accused is prohibited from leaving the jurisdiction of Mumbai without explicit permission from the investigating officer or the Court.c. The applicant/accused is strictly prohibited from making any form of contact with co-accused, witnesses, or any individuals directly associated with the case. The applicant/accused shall not tamper with any evidence or documents related to the case.d. The applicant/accused must maintain a stable residence at his current address in Ghatkopar, Mumbai, and is required to inform the court and the investigating officer of any change in his residential address. The accused shall furnish his active mobile number to the Investigating Officer and shall also immediately report any change in his mobile number.e. The applicant/accused must not interfere with the ongoing investigation and shall comply fully with law enforcement in their investigation.f. The applicant/accused shall surrender his passport, if any, before the Investigating Officer within a week and, if he does not possess any passport, he shall file an affidavit to that effect before the Investigating Officer.g. The applicant/accused is prohibited from engaging in activities that might be related to the offense registered.h. The applicant/accused must comply with all reasonable directions made by law enforcement agencies or investigating officers related to the case.i. As per para No.12(1) of the Criminal Manual, the applicant/accused before release on bail shall furnish the list of three blood relatives with their detail residential addresses and also the addresses of their place of work, if any, and shall also produce documentary proofs showing the correctness of details produced by him.
The order clearly warns that any failure to adhere to these conditions will result in the immediate revocation of bail and could lead to further legal repercussions.
The judgment, dictated on March 6, 2024, was transcribed and checked by March 18, 2024, and subsequently signed by Special Judge B. Y. Phad on the same date. It was officially uploaded on March 19, 2024.
This case highlights the importance of the quantity of the narcotic substance in determining the applicability of the stringent bail conditions under the NDPS Act. The court’s decision to grant bail in this instance underscores the distinction between commercial and non-commercial quantities and the corresponding legal implications for the accused. The imposed conditions reflect the court’s effort to balance the individual’s right to liberty with the societal interest in preventing further crime and ensuring a fair trial.