Mumbai, December 10, 2024 – In a recent order, the Special Court for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Greater Bombay, presided over by H.H. The Special Judge (NDPS) S. E. Bangar (Court Room No. 42), granted bail to Rani Anil Solanki, a 38-year-old housewife, who was arrested for the alleged possession of 7.26 grams of Mephedrone (MD).

The bail was granted in connection with Bail Application (NDPS) No. 981 of 2024, arising from NDPS Remand Application No. 1341 of 2024, related to LAC/CR.No.765/2024 registered at the Dr. D.B. Marg Police Station in Mumbai. Solanki was booked under Sections 8(c) and 22(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

Prosecution’s Allegation:

According to the prosecution, Rani Solanki was apprehended during routine patrolling by the D.B. Marg Police. A subsequent search allegedly led to the recovery of 7.26 grams of MD, classified as a non-commercial quantity under the NDPS Act. She was arrested, and the contraband was seized following due procedure.

Applicant’s Arguments for Bail:

Representing Rani Solanki, Ld. Advocate Mr. Jayant Parab argued several key points in favor of granting bail:

• Non-Commercial Quantity: The recovered 7.26 grams of MD is a non-commercial quantity, meaning the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which impose severe restrictions on bail, are not applicable in this case.
• Procedural Non-Compliance: The defense alleged non-compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act, claiming the search was conducted by unauthorized personnel.
• False Implication: The applicant denied the charges, asserting she was falsely implicated.
• Residency and Antecedents: Solanki is a permanent resident of Mumbai with no prior criminal record, significantly reducing the likelihood of her absconding or tampering with evidence.
• Willingness to Comply: The applicant expressed her readiness to adhere to any conditions imposed by the court.

Prosecution’s Opposition:

The learned APP Mrs. Sulbha Joshi strongly opposed the bail, presenting the following arguments:

• Lack of Fixed Residence: The prosecution pointed out that the applicant’s stated residence was on a footpath, raising concerns about her appearance for trial.
• Tampering and Intimidation: Granting bail could lead to the tampering of evidence and intimidation of witnesses.
• Ongoing Investigation: The applicant’s arrest had reportedly yielded significant information, and further investigation was necessary to apprehend other individuals linked to the crime.
• Stringent NDPS Provisions: The prosecution invoked Sections 35 and 37 of the NDPS Act, arguing for stringent bail conditions in narcotics cases.

Court’s Analysis and Legal Considerations:

H.H. The Special Judge S. E. Bangar meticulously analyzed the arguments and considered relevant legal provisions and precedents. The court specifically noted that the quantity of MD seized (7.26 grams) was indeed non-commercial, thus rendering the stringent conditions of Section 37 inapplicable.

The court also addressed the serious issue of alleged non-compliance with procedural safeguards under Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act. Citing the landmark judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh [(1999) 6 SCC 172], the court reiterated the mandatory nature of complying with Section 50 during searches and the illegality of recovery in case of violation.

Furthermore, the court acknowledged the applicant’s permanent residence and lack of prior criminal history as factors favoring her release, referencing the Supreme Court’s observation in Mohammad Yasin v. State of Gujarat [(2020) SCC Online SC 853)] that accused persons with no criminal history and limited contraband possession should be favorably considered for bail.

The court also considered settled legal positions from various landmark judgments:

• Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2020) 4 SCC 1]: Regarding the inadmissibility of confessions under Section 67 without corroboration.
• Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb [(2021) 3 SCC 713]: Emphasizing bail when the accused is unlikely to flee or tamper with evidence.
• Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar [(2014) 8 SCC 273]: Underscoring that liberty should not be curtailed arbitrarily, especially with cooperation.
• Sujit Tiwari v. State of Gujarat [(2020) SCC Online Guj 1453]: Highlighting leniency in bail for non-commercial quantity cases with no prior criminal record.

Court’s Findings and Order:

Based on the analysis, the court found that Rani Solanki, being a housewife with no prior criminal record, was unlikely to abscond. The alleged procedural lapses during the search warranted scrutiny during the trial. The non-commercial quantity of the contraband further mitigated the strictness of bail restrictions.

Considering these factors and the settled legal position, the court allowed the application for bail, passing the following order:

1. Bail Application (NDPS) No. 981 of 2024 is allowed and disposed of.
2. Applicant/Accused Rani Anil Solanki is to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹75,000/- (Rupees Seventy-Five Thousand) with one surety in the like amount in connection with CR.No.765 of 2024 of Dr. D.B. Marg Police Station, Mumbai.
3. The applicant shall furnish proofs of her photo identity, permanent and local residential addresses, and telephonic contact details to the Investigating Officer and the Court.
4. The applicant shall attend Dr. D.B. Marg Police Station every Monday and Thursday between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. until the conclusion of the trial and as and when required by the Investigating Officer for investigation, and shall cooperate with the investigation until further orders.
5. The applicant shall not hamper, tamper, or intimidate the informant, panchas, or any prosecution witnesses.
6. The applicant shall not indulge in similar or graver offenses while on bail.
7. The applicant shall surrender her Passport, if any, to the Investigating Officer.
8. The applicant shall not leave the jurisdiction of this Court until the completion of the investigation without informing the Investigating Officer about her residential addresses and telephonic contact details.
9. Failure to comply with any condition shall result in the cancellation of bail.
10. A copy of the order shall be communicated to the accused through the Superintendent of the Mumbai Central Prison, Arthur Road.

This order emphasizes the court’s balanced approach, considering both the severity of the alleged offense and the individual circumstances of the accused, particularly when the quantity of the seized contraband falls below the commercial threshold and procedural irregularities are alleged. The imposition of stringent conditions aims to ensure the applicant’s presence during the trial and prevent any obstruction of justice.