Mumbai, December 20, 2024 – The Special Judge for N.D.P.S. Cases at Greater Mumbai, C. S. Datir, today granted bail to Laban Kumar Sabulan Edla, a 29-year-old resident of Odisha, who was arrested in connection with the seizure of Ganja. The bail was granted in relation to C. R. No. 70/2024 registered under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii), (c), and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, with DCB CID Unit-6, Mumbai.
Edla’s bail application (No. 972/2024) was filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (which corresponds to Section 439 of the old CrPC). In his application, Edla claimed innocence and false implication. He stated that he was arrested on October 26, 2024, and had been in custody since. He argued that the alleged contraband seized from him weighed 2 kgs. 110 gms., which falls under the non-commercial quantity category, thus not attracting the stringent conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Edla also presented himself as the sole bread earner of his family and assured the court of his cooperation with the investigating agency and non-tampering of witnesses if released on bail.
The State, represented by Ld. APP Mr. Shankar Erande and the Investigating Officer, opposed the bail. They stated that on October 25, 2024, during patrolling in the Lokmanya Tilak Terminals area, the police found two individuals, including Edla, moving suspiciously with travel bags. Upon searching, they allegedly found a total of 24 kgs. 500 gms. of Ganja in their possession. While acknowledging it was a non-commercial quantity, the prosecution argued the presence of a larger racket and deemed it inappropriate to release him on bail.
After hearing the arguments and perusing the record, Special Judge C. S. Datir noted that there were three accused in the case. The Investigating Officer allegedly recovered 21 kgs. 100 gms. of Ganja from accused no. 1, 2 kgs. 110 gms. from the present applicant (accused no. 2), and 1 kg. 290 gms. from accused no. 3, totaling 24 kgs. 500 gms. The court specifically pointed out that the quantity allegedly seized from the present applicant, 2 kgs. 110 gms., was admittedly a non-commercial quantity, thus exempting him from the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
The court further observed that there were no criminal antecedents reported against the applicant. It also reasoned that the mere fact that all accused were found together did not automatically imply a conspiracy between them. In support of this, the applicant’s advocate, Ms. Neetu Singh, relied on a bail order in the case of Akash Jariwala vs. The State of Maharashtra (B.A. no. 3032/2019).
Considering the precedent and the fact that the quantity attributed to the applicant was non-commercial, the court was of the view that it could not be said that the applicant was found in possession of a commercial quantity. With the charge sheet reportedly filed and the investigation over, the court deemed it appropriate to enlarge the accused on bail. However, noting that the applicant hailed from Odisha, the court decided to impose a substantial surety.
The court passed the following order:
- Bail Application No. 972/2024 is hereby allowed.
- The applicant/accused Laban Kumar Sabulan Edla, arrested in C. R. No. 70/2024, shall be released on bail upon executing a Personal Bond (PB) and a Surety Bond (SB) of ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with one solvent surety of the like amount.
- He shall not tamper with the evidence of the prosecution. He shall not influence the informant, witnesses, or any other person concerned with the case.
This order highlights the importance of the quantity of the seized contraband in determining the applicability of the stringent bail conditions under the NDPS Act. The court’s decision to grant bail in this case underscores the principle that the burden of proof for conspiracy lies with the prosecution and cannot be solely inferred from the co-presence of individuals with varying quantities of non-commercial drugs. The imposition of a higher surety likely reflects the court’s concern about the applicant’s out-of-state residence and ensuring his presence during the trial.