Mumbai, April 9, 2025 (Thane News Bureau): The Special Judge for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Cases at Greater Mumbai has granted bail to Dawood Fazaluddin Tambe, a 46-year-old labourer, who was accused number three in a case involving the seizure of a commercial quantity of cough syrup containing codeine phosphate. The order, passed on September 30, 2023, by His Honour the Special Judge Shri R. R. Bhagwat in Court Room No. 44, allows Tambe’s release upon furnishing a Personal Recognizance (PR) bond of ₹50,000 with one or more sureties of the same amount.

Tambe was implicated in C. R. No. 265/2023 registered at Deonar Police Station for offences punishable under sections 8(c) read with Section 22(c) (pertaining to commercial quantity of narcotic drugs) and 29 (criminal conspiracy) of the NDPS Act, 1985.

The prosecution’s case, as detailed in the court order, stemmed from a patrolling operation conducted by a police team on the intervening night of June 24 and 25, 2023. During this operation, they apprehended accused number one near New Bhimnagar Transit Camp in Govandi, who was found in possession of a white sack containing 96 bottles of cough syrup. Each 100 ml bottle contained 10 mg of Codeine Phosphate, totaling 960 mg of the controlled substance. Accused number one was subsequently arrested.

Further investigation led to the arrest of accused number two, Abdul Subhan Hazarali Shaikh, on June 27, 2023. The statement of accused number one allegedly revealed that accused number two had procured the seized contraband from an individual named Abdul from Bihar, sending it through courier after receiving ₹40,000 via ATM transfer. Accused number one also reportedly disclosed contacting the Bihar-based Abdul using a seized mobile phone.

The prosecution contended that accused number two, Abdul Subhan, used to supply the cough syrup bottles to accused number one through the present applicant, Dawood Fazaluddin Tambe, leading to Tambe’s arrest in the case.

Advocate S. R. Patil appeared for the applicant, arguing that Tambe was falsely implicated and that nothing was recovered from his possession. He asserted that the stringent bar of Section 37 of the NDPS Act (which imposes limitations on granting bail in certain NDPS offences) was not applicable in this case. The defense highlighted that the investigation was almost complete, Tambe had been thoroughly interrogated, and there was no direct connection established between him and the recovered contraband. Furthermore, the defense pointed out the unlikelihood of an early trial and sought bail for Tambe.

Advocate Patil specifically emphasized that accused number one and two had already been granted bail by the same court in Bail Application Nos. 636/2023 and 594/2023, respectively. He argued that since no contraband was found in the possession of accused number two and three, and no recovery was made at Tambe’s instance, the ground of parity was squarely available to the applicant.

Ld. APP Mr. Shankar Erande for the State opposed the bail application, stating that three accused were involved in the crime. He acknowledged the recovery of contraband from accused number one but argued that accused number one had implicated accused number two, who in turn had named the present applicant. The prosecution also highlighted the seizure of Tambe’s mobile phone and alleged contact between all three accused, as well as the ₹40,000 transaction involving accused number two. The APP invoked Section 29 of the NDPS Act (criminal conspiracy), emphasized the commercial quantity of the seized contraband, and labeled the offense as serious, portraying the accused as a supplier with a potential risk of absconding.

However, Special Judge Bhagwat, after considering the rival submissions and the material on record, noted that the present applicant’s involvement was primarily based on the statement of accused number two. The court acknowledged that a statement of a co-accused is generally not admissible as substantive evidence to connect another accused with the crime. While recognizing the recovery of a mobile phone from the applicant, the court stated that the significance of this evidence would be a matter of appreciation during trial.

Crucially, the court highlighted that contraband was not recovered from Tambe, and that accused number one and two had already been released on bail. This formed the basis for granting bail to Tambe on the principle of parity. The court also considered that Tambe was a local resident with no known criminal antecedents and that his presence could be secured for investigation and trial by imposing stringent conditions.

Consequently, Bail Application No. 741/2023 was allowed, subject to the following conditions:

1. Tambe must execute a P. R. Bond of ₹50,000 with one or more sureties of the like amount.
2. He is required to attend Deonar Police Station every Monday between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. until the filing of the charge-sheet for the purpose of the ongoing investigation.
3. Tambe and his sureties must provide their respective mobile numbers and correct residential addresses, along with the names, mobile numbers, and addresses of two relatives.
4. He must produce proof of identity and residence at the time of executing the Bail Bond.
5. He is strictly prohibited from tampering with prosecution witnesses or evidence in any manner and must cooperate in the early disposal of the trial.
6. He must not commit any similar offense while on bail.

The order, delivered on September 30, 2023, indicates the court’s reliance on the principle of parity and the lack of direct recovery from the applicant as key factors in granting bail, despite the commercial quantity of the primary seizure. Tambe’s release is contingent upon his adherence to the stringent conditions imposed by the court.