Mumbai, February 8, 2024: The Special Court for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) in Greater Bombay, presided over by Judge K.P. Kshirsagar, has granted bail to Afzal Zulfikar Ansari in a case involving possession of intermediate quantities of controlled substances. The bail, granted under Criminal Bail Application No. 98/2024, comes after the accused’s initial detention on January 1, 2024, when police discovered Mephedrone and Codeine-containing syrup in his and a co-accused’s possession.

Case Background

On January 1, 2024, officials from the Mankhurd Police Station detained Afzal Ansari (26) and co-accused Sufiyan Liyakatli Khan during routine patrolling operations in Mumbai. According to the police, Ansari and Khan were acting suspiciously, prompting officers to conduct searches on both individuals. The search allegedly led to the discovery of:

• 15 grams of Mephedrone (MD) from Khan’s possession, classified as an intermediate quantity under the NDPS Act.
• Six bottles of Welcyrex syrup (100 ml each), containing Chlorpheniramine Maleate and Codeine Phosphate, found on Ansari.

Given these findings, both Ansari and Khan were charged under sections 8(c) (prohibition on possessing controlled substances), 22(c) (punishment for possession of certain substances), and 29 (abetment of offenses) of the NDPS Act, 1985. The charges carried the potential for stringent penalties due to the controlled nature of the substances, although no commercial quantities were involved.

Arguments from Defense and Prosecution

1. Defense’s Position:

• Intermediate Quantity Argument: Representing Ansari, Advocate Sherali Khan argued that the contraband quantities found on Ansari and Khan were classified as “intermediate” rather than “commercial” under the NDPS Act. Consequently, Section 37 of the Act, which imposes stringent conditions on bail for commercial quantities, would not apply.
• No Criminal Background: Advocate Khan highlighted that Ansari had no prior criminal record and had cooperated fully with the authorities during his detention and investigation.
• Time in Custody: Khan pointed out that Ansari had already been in custody for over a month (since January 1, 2024), during which time the investigation had substantially progressed, with no remaining material to be recovered from him.
• Assurances of Compliance: To address concerns over his release, Ansari offered assurances to comply with any court-imposed conditions, including regular appearances and cooperation with the ongoing investigation.

1. Prosecution’s Objections:

• Impact on Investigation: The Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Rajput, strongly opposed bail, emphasizing that the investigation was ongoing and that further inquiries and apprehensions (including a third party linked to the accused) remained pending. He expressed concern that Ansari’s release could disrupt the investigative process and make it harder to secure further evidence.
• Risk of Interference: Rajput argued that releasing Ansari could pose risks of interference with potential witnesses or tampering with evidence, as this is often a concern in narcotics cases involving multiple parties.
• Precedent of Criminal Involvement: While acknowledging Ansari’s clean record, the prosecutor noted the educated backgrounds of both accused individuals, suggesting their potential for organized criminal involvement in narcotics distribution or consumption.

Court’s Observations and Ruling

After considering arguments from both sides, Judge K.P. Kshirsagar conducted a detailed analysis based on the documents submitted, witness statements, and the legal parameters under the NDPS Act. Key observations included:

1. Intermediate Quantity and Legal Provisions:

• Judge Kshirsagar noted that the contraband recovered from Ansari and Khan fell within the “intermediate quantity” range as per NDPS Act classifications. Thus, while the substances involved were controlled, the quantity did not invoke the rigorous bail restrictions of Section 37 that apply to commercial quantities.
• The NDPS Act mandates severe penalties for drug possession and trafficking, yet Ansari’s case involved non-commercial quantities. As such, the offense carried a maximum punishment of 10 years, which, though severe, did not necessitate automatic pretrial detention without bail.

1. Principles of Bail and Personal Liberty:

• The court emphasized the fundamental right to personal liberty and the principle of “presumption of innocence,” reiterating that bail serves primarily to ensure the accused’s presence during trial rather than as pre-conviction punishment. Judge Kshirsagar referenced the Constitution’s safeguard of personal liberty, underscoring that every accused should be treated as innocent until proven guilty.
• In addition, Judge Kshirsagar pointed to the specific context of Ansari’s behavior during his detention and investigation. The court found no indication that Ansari had obstructed the inquiry, bolstering the argument for conditional release.

1. Imposition of Conditions to Mitigate Risk:

• To address potential risks raised by the prosecution, the court outlined specific bail conditions aimed at safeguarding the investigation’s integrity. The conditions were crafted to ensure Ansari’s compliance and prevent any interference in the judicial process.

Conditions of Bail

The court granted bail to Ansari with a personal bond of ₹50,000 and the following stipulations:

• Mandatory Cooperation: Ansari must remain available to the Investigating Officer for questioning as required and must attend court hearings as scheduled.
• No Evidence Tampering: Ansari is barred from tampering with evidence or influencing any witnesses connected to the case.
• Compliance with Trial Process: He is expected to actively cooperate with all procedures to ensure a swift trial.
• Restriction on Further Criminal Activity: Ansari is cautioned against engaging in any criminal conduct while on bail.
• Updated Contact Information: Both Ansari and his sureties are required to provide current phone numbers, addresses, and proof of residence at the time of bond execution.

Implications of the Court’s Decision

This bail grant serves as a notable precedent in NDPS cases involving intermediate quantities, where personal liberty considerations balance with the need for thorough judicial processes. The court’s detailed conditions reflect an effort to uphold both Ansari’s rights and the investigation’s interests, indicating a careful approach in narcotics cases with varying degrees of offense severity.

Judge Kshirsagar’s decision underscores the court’s responsibility to protect personal freedoms within the framework of lawful conditions, especially in instances where the alleged offense does not reach the threshold of commercial trafficking. By setting stringent bail conditions, the court aims to ensure that Ansari’s release does not adversely affect public safety or the integrity of the investigation.

Summary: This case highlights the Bombay NDPS Court’s balanced approach in granting bail for intermediate drug possession while securing both public interest and individual rights under the NDPS Act.

Nishant Upadhyay