Mumbai, India – January 24, 2024 – In a case involving the seizure of a large quantity of gutkha, a banned chewable tobacco product, a Mumbai Sessions Court has granted bail to two men, Santosh Kumar Ramsihasan Singh and Kalim Wahid Hasan Khan. The court also raised questions about the applicability of a serious charge of administering a poisonous substance, Section 328 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Additional Sessions Judge Rajesh A. Sasne, presiding over Court Room No. 30, granted bail to Singh and Khan in Criminal Bail Application No. 115 of 2024. The duo had been arrested on January 9, 2024, in connection with Crime No. 2/2024 registered with DCB CID, which corresponds to FIR No. 27/2024 at D.N. Nagar Police Station.
Gutkha Seizure and Legal Charges:
The case stemmed from a tip-off on January 7, 2024, regarding the illegal sale of gutkha. Following the arrest of an initial suspect, Ibrahim, police seized a tempo containing gutkha valued at Rs. 28,17,700 from Singh and Khan on January 9. The accused were charged under Sections 188 (disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant), 272 (adulteration of food or drink intended for sale), 273 (sale of noxious food or drink), and 328 (causing1 harm by means of poison, etc., with intent to commit an offence) read with Section 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the IPC, and Section 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
Defense Arguments and Court’s Observations:
The defense argued that Singh and Khan were falsely implicated, had undergone custodial interrogation, and were now in judicial custody. They asserted that the investigation was nearing completion and no further recoveries were pending. They also pointed out that they were permanent residents of their given address, reducing the risk of them fleeing.
A crucial point of contention was the application of Section 328 of the IPC, which carries a severe punishment. The defense cited several prior judgments from the Bombay High Court, including Gaurav Jayantbhai Hapani v. The State of Maharashtra, where the court had questioned the application of this section in gutkha-related cases. They argued that the matter of Section 328’s applicability in such cases is currently sub judice before the Supreme Court.
Judge Sasne, while acknowledging the sub judice nature of the issue, noted the Bombay High Court’s observations in Gaurav Hapani’s case and other similar judgments. He observed that the accused were arrested with the gutkha and the tempo, and no further recoveries were pending. He concluded that their further incarceration was unnecessary if reasonable bail conditions were imposed.
Bail Conditions:
The court granted bail to Singh and Khan on the following conditions:
- Each to furnish a personal bond and surety bond of Rs. 25,000.
- They shall not tamper with prosecution witnesses or evidence.
- They shall attend the concerned police station every Sunday between 7:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. until the filing of the charge sheet or further orders.
- They shall not leave India without prior permission of the court.
- Provisional cash bail was allowed, with the condition that sureties must be furnished within four weeks.
Implications and Ongoing Legal Debate:
The court’s decision highlights the ongoing legal debate surrounding the application of Section 328 of the IPC in gutkha-related cases. The debate centers on whether gutkha, a banned but widely available product, can be considered a “poisonous substance” within the meaning of the section. The court’s willingness to grant bail, despite the serious charges, suggests a cautious approach pending further clarification from the Supreme Court. The case also brings to light the continuing problem of illegal gutkha sales, and the efforts by police to combat the trade.