February 13, 2024, Mumbai, India – The Special NDPS Court in Mumbai, presided over by Judge K.P. Kshirsagar, rejected the bail application of 32-year-old laborer Imtiyaz Mehboob Shaikh, a key suspect in a narcotic drug trafficking case. Shaikh was arrested by the Anti-Narcotics Cell (ANC) Worli Unit in Mumbai under NDPS Bail Application No. 94/2024 for his alleged involvement in a supply chain responsible for distributing a large quantity of Codeine Phosphate syrup, a controlled drug under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
The court order, pronounced on February 13, 2024, dismissed Shaikh’s bail request after detailed consideration of the case specifics and ongoing investigations. This decision reflects the judiciary’s strong stance against narcotic trafficking and underlines the rigorous standards imposed under the NDPS Act, especially for cases involving large quantities of contraband.
Case Background
Shaikh was implicated as Accused No. 2 in Crime No. 77/2023 following the arrest of co-accused Nezfor Maful SK, also known as Ali or Raju, from whom authorities recovered 556 bottles of Codeine Phosphate cough syrup during routine patrolling on September 4, 2023. Each bottle contained a substantial amount of the controlled drug, which is frequently misused as a narcotic due to its psychoactive effects. The recovered quantity qualifies as “commercial,” which invokes strict legal scrutiny and penalties under the NDPS Act.
During the subsequent investigation, the co-accused allegedly named Shaikh as his supplier, leading to Shaikh’s arrest on January 4, 2024. Although no contraband was found directly in Shaikh’s possession, the prosecution argued that his role in the drug trafficking network was critical, as he was reportedly responsible for supplying the large consignment of Codeine Phosphate to the co-accused.
Defense Arguments for Bail
Shaikh’s defense, led by Advocate Ms. Poonam Kanade, contended that Shaikh was wrongfully accused and should be granted bail, as no direct evidence linked him to the narcotics found with the co-accused. The defense emphasized that:
- This was Shaikh’s first bail application, and he had no pending bail requests or rejections in any higher court.
- The prosecution’s case rested solely on the statement of a co-accused, which the defense argued is inadmissible as standalone evidence under the law.
- Shaikh, a resident of Mumbai, was ready to comply with any court-imposed bail conditions.
The defense also cited several previous rulings, including Sangeeta Y. Gaikwad vs. State of Maharashtra, Aryan Shah Rukh Khan vs. Union of India and Another, Sagar Nana Borkar vs. State of Maharashtra, and Abdullah Abdul Salam Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra, where bail was granted under similar circumstances.
Prosecution’s Counterarguments
Representing the State, APP Mr. Rajput asserted that the evidence was strong against Shaikh, arguing that:
- The co-accused’s statement linking Shaikh to the drug supply chain is admissible for investigative purposes and establishes a prima facie case under Section 29 of the NDPS Act, which penalizes conspiracy in drug-related offenses.
- Chemical Analysis (CA) reports confirmed the seized substance as Codeine Phosphate, strengthening the case against Shaikh and indicating his involvement in narcotics trafficking.
- Given the commercial quantity of the contraband recovered, the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply, which mandates that the accused must demonstrate no likelihood of future offenses or potential risk to the public.
The prosecution further highlighted Shaikh’s alleged involvement in a broader drug distribution network, pointing out his previous criminal history, which indicates a pattern of repeated offenses. They argued that his release on bail could jeopardize ongoing investigations and increase the likelihood of him tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
Court’s Decision and Rationale
After reviewing the case materials and arguments from both sides, Judge K.P. Kshirsagar denied the bail application. Key observations and findings from the court’s ruling include:
- Commercial Quantity: The court acknowledged the severity of the offense due to the commercial quantity of Codeine Phosphate seized, which under Section 37 of the NDPS Act invokes a “no-bail” clause unless the accused can prove a low risk of re-offending and a lack of guilt, which Shaikh failed to demonstrate.
- Nexus with Co-Accused: The court found that the co-accused’s statement, though challenged by the defense, could be relied upon for investigative purposes. Prima facie evidence indicated a nexus between Shaikh and the co-accused, reinforcing the prosecution’s claim of a drug trafficking conspiracy.
- Incomplete Investigation: Judge Kshirsagar pointed out that the investigation was ongoing and stated that Shaikh’s release could compromise the process by potentially influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence. The court emphasized the public interest in deterring narcotics trafficking, deeming a liberal bail approach inappropriate given the offense’s gravity.
Conclusion
The Special NDPS Court’s decision to reject bail underscores the judiciary’s stringent approach in cases involving commercial quantities of controlled substances. Shaikh’s case highlights the application of the NDPS Act’s rigorous provisions aimed at combating drug trafficking and maintaining public safety.
This ruling serves as a reminder of the high evidentiary standards and strict regulations under the NDPS Act, emphasizing the significant obstacles for accused individuals seeking bail in commercial drug-related cases. Judge Kshirsagar’s ruling reflects a balance between individual rights and societal welfare, stressing the importance of comprehensive investigations and upholding stringent conditions in narcotics cases.
