Mumbai, Maharashtra – April 14, 2025 – A Special Court for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act in Greater Bombay has rejected the bail applications of two men from Uttarakhand, Mohammad Farhad Saleem Ahmed Gaur, 31, and Mohammad Jahangir Saleem Ahmed Gaur, 38, who are accused of drug trafficking involving a minor. The order, dated December 4, 2024, was recently made available, shedding light on the court’s reasoning for denying bail to the accused.

The duo, residents of Teliwala Padali Gujjar in Haridwar district, Uttarakhand, were arrested in connection with CR.No.774 of 2024 registered at Borivali Police Station. They are charged under Sections 8(c), 21(b), and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, for their alleged involvement in the seizure of 33 grams and 28 grams of heroin.

The prosecution’s case hinges on a disclosure statement made by a juvenile, Raja Wajid Jhoja (accused no. 1), which led to the arrest of Mohammad Farhad and Mohammad Jahangir.

Accused Claim Innocence and Procedural Lapses

Seeking regular bail under the newly enacted Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), read with Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), the applicants, represented by Ld. Advocate Shri Amol Thombre, vehemently claimed their innocence. They asserted that they were falsely implicated and are merely daily wage workers from Uttarakhand.

Their defense further rested on allegations of procedural violations by the investigating authorities, specifically citing non-compliance with the mandatory provisions under Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act, which deal with search, seizure, and the rights of the person being searched.

The applicants also argued that the quantity of heroin recovered from them falls under the category of “intermediate quantity,” which, according to them, should not invoke the stringent conditions for bail stipulated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. They further pleaded on humanitarian grounds, stating that they are the sole earners for their respective families and have no prior criminal record.

Prosecution Alleges Conspiracy and Exploitation of a Minor

The prosecution, represented by Ld. APP Shri R.V. Tiwari, strongly opposed the bail applications. The state argued that the applicants were part of a larger conspiracy, alleging that they were the suppliers of heroin to the juvenile accused no. 1, thereby exploiting a minor for the illicit drug trade.

The prosecution emphasized the substantial evidence against the applicants, citing the seizure of heroin not only from accused no. 1 but also from the applicants’ residence. They argued that Call Detail Record (CDR) analysis further established a direct link between the applicants and the juvenile.

Concerns were also raised about the applicants being residents of another state, posing a significant risk of them absconding during the trial if granted bail. Additionally, the prosecution highlighted that the investigation is still ongoing, particularly concerning the role of another alleged supplier identified as “Alim.”

Court’s Scrutiny of Legal Provisions and Precedents

H.H. The Special Judge (NDPS), S. E. Bangar, presiding over the case, meticulously analyzed the arguments presented by both sides, taking into account relevant legal provisions and precedents.

The court specifically addressed Section 35 of the NDPS Act, which presumes a culpable mental state of the accused in drug-related offenses, placing the burden on the accused to rebut this presumption. The court noted that the applicants had not presented substantial evidence to counter this statutory presumption.

Regarding bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the court emphasized that for bail to be granted, the applicants must demonstrate reasonable grounds for believing they are not guilty and are unlikely to commit further offenses while on bail.

The court also acknowledged the applicants’ contention regarding procedural violations, citing the landmark judgment in State of Punjab vs. Baldev Singh [(1999) 6 SCC 172], which stressed the importance of strict compliance with procedural safeguards under the NDPS Act. However, the court opined that these alleged lapses would require detailed adjudication during the trial.

While acknowledging that the recovered quantity of heroin was intermediate, the court underscored that the applicants’ alleged role in trafficking and conspiracy, particularly involving a minor, could not be disregarded.

The court also referred to other significant judgments, including Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu [(2020) 4 SCC 1], which dealt with the inadmissibility of confessions under Section 67 of the NDPS Act unless corroborated, and Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) SCC, which discussed the delicate balance between fundamental rights and societal interests when considering bail applications.

Court Finds Gravity of Offense Outweighs Bail Considerations

After a thorough analysis of the facts, evidence, and legal precedents, the Special Judge concluded that the gravity of the allegations, the quantity of heroin recovered, and the alleged exploitation of a minor in the drug trafficking chain outweighed the arguments presented by the applicants for bail.

The court stated that the prima facie evidence, including the recovery of contraband from their residence and their connection with the juvenile accused through CDR analysis, indicated their involvement in the crime. The court further reasoned that the alleged procedural violations did not outweigh the seriousness of the offense and their potential involvement in a larger conspiracy.

Bail Applications Rejected

Consequently, the court passed a definitive order, rejecting the Bail Application No.943 of 2024 filed by Mohammad Farhad Saleem Ahmed Gaur and Mohammad Jahangir Saleem Ahmed Gaur. The Bail Application was accordingly disposed of.

The order, signed by H.H. The Special Judge (NDPS) S. E. Bangar on December 7, 2024, and digitally signed on December 9, 2024, signifies a firm stance by the special court against drug trafficking offenses, especially those involving minors, even at the stage of bail consideration. The case will now proceed towards trial, where the applicants will have the opportunity to present their defense in detail.