Mumbai, Maharashtra – April 20, 2024 – Ajay Ramkrushna Yadav, a 30-year-old Mumbai resident, has been granted bail by the Special Court for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, in connection with a case involving the alleged possession of 8 grams of Mephedrone. Yadav was arrested and charged under Section 8(c) read with Section 22(b) of the NDPS Act, 1985, following his arrest on March 27, 2024, by the Gaondevi Police Station.

The case centered around the recovery of 8 grams of Mephedrone, a synthetic stimulant, from Yadav’s possession. This quantity falls within the “intermediate quantity” category under the NDPS Act, which significantly influenced the court’s decision.

Arguments Presented:

Advocate Tushar Kadam, representing Yadav, argued that his client was a first-time offender with no prior criminal record. He emphasized that the recovered quantity was intermediate, thus not triggering the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. He further stated that Yadav, a 30-year-old service professional, had been in custody since March 27, 2024, and that nothing further needed to be recovered from him. Yadav, a resident of Mumbai, was willing to abide by all conditions imposed by the court.

The prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Rajput, opposed the bail application. They argued that the investigation revealed Yadav possessed the Mephedrone for sale, indicating he was a drug peddler. They expressed concerns that releasing Yadav at this stage would hamper the ongoing investigation.

Court’s Decision and Rationale:

Special Judge K.P. Kshirsagar, after considering the arguments and reviewing the case records, granted Yadav bail. The court noted that the alleged offense under Section 8(c) read with Section 22(b) of the NDPS Act carries a potential sentence of up to 10 years and a fine of up to Rs. 1 lakh. However, the court highlighted that the recovered quantity was intermediate and non-commercial, meaning the stringent conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act did not apply.

The court also acknowledged that Yadav had no prior criminal record, was a resident of Mumbai, and had been in custody since March 27, 2024. Furthermore, the court found that the investigation concerning Yadav was nearing completion and that no further recovery was necessary.

Judge Kshirsagar emphasized the importance of personal liberty and the presumption of innocence. He stated that the purpose of bail is to secure the accused’s presence at trial, not to punish or prevent crime. The court found that Yadav had cooperated with the investigation and was likely to continue to do so during the trial.

Bail Conditions Imposed:

The court granted bail to Yadav upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one or more sureties of the same amount. The following conditions were imposed:

• Cooperation with Investigation: Yadav must cooperate with the Investigating Officer and make himself available for interrogation as required.
• No Tampering with Evidence: He must not tamper with prosecution evidence or influence witnesses.
• Cooperation with Trial: He must cooperate in the early disposal of the trial.
• No Criminal Offenses: He must not commit any criminal offense while on bail.
• Contact Information: Yadav and his surety must provide their mobile numbers, present addresses, and proof of residence at the time of executing the bail bonds.

Significance of the Decision:

This case illustrates the court’s approach to balancing individual liberty with the need to uphold drug laws. The decision to grant bail, despite the serious nature of the offense, reflects the court’s consideration of the quantity of the contraband, the accused’s lack of criminal history, and the stage of the investigation. The imposed conditions aim to ensure Yadav’s presence at trial and prevent any potential interference with the legal process. This case also clarifies the difference between intermediate and commercial quantities of drugs when considering bail under the NDPS act.