Mumbai, July 27, 2022 – In a ruling that highlights the nuanced application of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, the Special Court for NDPS Act at Greater Bombay granted bail to Rahul Rama Ingle, a 20-year-old Vikhroli resident, who was arrested in connection with the possession of Mephedrone (MD). The decision, delivered by Additional Sessions Judge Shri V.G. Raghuwanshi (C.R. 43) on July 25, 2022, emphasizes the importance of the quantity of seized contraband and the consequent non-applicability of stringent provisions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Arrest and Allegations:

Rahul Rama Ingle, along with two other individuals, was apprehended by the Park Site police on July 2, 2022. The police alleged that they seized a total of 30 grams of Mephedrone (MD), with 20 grams recovered from accused number one, 7 grams from accused number two, and 3 grams from Ingle, the applicant/accused number three. The prosecution further claimed that the accused were involved in the sale of the contraband. Following their arrest, they were produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate Court in Vikhroli and remanded to judicial custody.

Bail Application and Arguments:

Ingle, through his advocate B.S. Meti, filed a bail application (Criminal Bail Application No. 1692 of 2022), contending that he had been falsely implicated in the case. He asserted that he and the other accused were merely having tea when they were apprehended. He argued that the interrogation was complete, and the police did not require his custody for further investigation. Notably, he claimed that nothing was seized from him, and the police had falsely implicated him. He emphasized the hardship his continued detention was causing to his family and expressed his willingness to abide by any conditions imposed by the court.

The prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor S.S. Panjwani, opposed the bail application, submitting a report from the Investigating Officer (Exh-02) detailing the grounds for opposition.

Court’s Reasoning and Decision:

Judge Raghuwanshi, after hearing both sides, focused on the critical aspect of the quantity of the seized contraband. He noted that the total quantity of Mephedrone (MD) seized was 30 grams, which is less than the commercial quantity specified under the NDPS Act.

“It appears total contraband seized in this case was 30 grams i.e. less than commercial quantity,” the judge stated in his oral order. “It is alleged that 3 grams Mephedrone (MD) was seized from applicant/accused.”

This determination had significant legal implications. Under the NDPS Act, Section 37 imposes stringent conditions for granting bail in cases involving commercial quantities of contraband. However, since the seized quantity in this case was less than commercial, Section 37 did not apply.

The judge further highlighted that the maximum punishment that could be awarded in this case was imprisonment up to 10 years and a fine. He considered Ingle’s willingness to abide by all conditions and furnish sureties as indicative of his cooperation.

“Applicant/accused submits that, he is ready to abide by all conditions those may be imposed by this Court,” Judge Raghuwanshi observed. “He is ready to furnish surety also. Therefore, case is made out for exercising discretion in favour of the applicant/accused.”

Consequently, the court granted bail to Rahul Rama Ingle, ordering his release upon furnishing a Personal Recognizance (PR) bond of Rs. 25,000 with one or more solvent sureties of the same amount. The court imposed several conditions, including that Ingle must not engage in any activity that would hamper the investigation, must appear regularly before the trial court, must not tamper with prosecution evidence, and must appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called.

Implications and Significance:

This ruling underscores the importance of the quantity of seized contraband in NDPS cases and the consequent application of legal provisions. The decision emphasizes that in cases involving quantities less than commercial, the stringent conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply, allowing for a more lenient approach to bail.

The judgment also highlights the court’s consideration of the accused’s willingness to cooperate with the investigation and abide by court conditions. The case serves as a reminder of the judicial process’s emphasis on balancing individual liberty with the need to prevent drug-related offenses.

The order was dictated on July 25, 2022, typed on July 26, 2022, and signed on the same day. It was uploaded on July 27, 2022, at 11:52 a.m.