Mumbai, India – February 8, 2024 – A 31-year-old software engineer, Sufiyan Liyakatali Khan, has been granted bail by a special NDPS court in Mumbai after being arrested for alleged possession of Mephedrone (MD). Additional Sessions Judge K.P. Kshirsagar, presiding over Court Room No. 43, granted bail in Criminal Bail Application No. 102 of 2024, citing the intermediate quantity of the seized drug and the absence of a criminal record.

Khan was arrested on January 1, 2024, by the Mankhurd police under C.R. No. 01/2024, facing charges under Section 8(c) read with Section 22(c) and Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.

The Arrest and Allegations:

According to the prosecution, during a patrol on January 1, 2024, officers found Khan and co-accused Afzal Zulfikar Ansari in a suspicious condition. Upon searching Khan, they allegedly recovered 15 grams of MD from his possession. Ansari was found in possession of six bottles of Chlorpheniramine Maleate & Codeine Phosphate syrup.

Defense Arguments:

Khan’s defense, led by Advocate Zehra Charnia, argued that the quantity of MD recovered was an intermediate quantity, not a commercial one, thus the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which restricts bail, did not apply. They emphasized that Khan had no prior criminal record, was a resident of Mumbai, and had been in custody since January 1, 2024. They also asserted that nothing further needed to be recovered from him and that he was willing to abide by any conditions imposed by the court.

Prosecution Objections:

The prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Rajput, opposed the bail, arguing that the investigation was ongoing, and a wanted accused was yet to be arrested. They expressed concerns that Khan’s release could hamper the investigation.

Court’s Reasoning and Decision:

Judge Kshirsagar, after reviewing the evidence and hearing arguments from both sides, granted bail to Khan. The court noted that the quantity of contraband recovered from Khan and the co-accused suggested that the offense fell under Section 8(c) read with Section 22(b) of the NDPS Act, which carries a maximum punishment of 10 years and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh, rather than Section 22(c), which carries a more severe punishment.

“Admittedly, the quantity of contraband alleged to be recovered from applicant/accused is a non-commercial quantity and it is intermediate quantity. As such the rigour of section 37 of NDPS Act is not applicable in present matter,” Judge Kshirsagar stated in his order.

The court also considered Khan’s educational background as a software engineer, the absence of a criminal record, his residency in Mumbai, and the fact that he had been in custody for over a month.

“Personal liberty is most precious of all fundamental rights. There is presumption of innocence unless the guilt is proved. The object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial and the object is neither punitive and preventive,” the court observed.

The court concluded that Khan had cooperated during the investigation and was likely to cooperate during the trial. It also found that his presence could be secured even if he was released on bail, and that the prosecution’s interests could be safeguarded by imposing certain conditions.

Bail Conditions:

Khan was granted bail on the following conditions:

• He must execute a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one or more sureties of the same amount.
• He must cooperate with the investigating officer and be available for interrogation when required.
• He must not tamper with prosecution evidence or influence witnesses.
• He must cooperate in the early disposal of the trial.
• He must not commit any criminal offense while on bail.
• He and his surety must provide their mobile numbers and current addresses with proof of residence.

Implications:

The court’s decision underscores the importance of the quantity of drugs seized in NDPS cases in determining the applicability of stringent bail provisions. It also highlights the court’s consideration of factors such as the accused’s educational background, criminal history, and cooperation with the investigation. This case demonstrates the courts commitment to upholding personal liberty when the law allows for it.