Mumbai, January 17, 2024 – A special court in Mumbai has granted bail to an 18-year-old resident, Pradeep Amar Pashi, following his arrest in a narcotics case involving the possession of charas, a form of cannabis. Pashi was detained on December 6, 2023, under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. His bail application, reviewed by the court, cited factors including his young age, lack of prior criminal record, and cooperative conduct during the investigation.
Case Details
Pradeep Amar Pashi, a resident of Goregaon East, Mumbai, was arrested following a police operation that allegedly found him in possession of 380 grams of charas. The Dindoshi Police Station registered the case (C.R. No.901/2023), accusing Pashi of violating Section 8(c) and Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, which pertain to the prohibition and possession of controlled narcotic substances.
Defense Arguments
Appearing for Pashi, defense lawyers Mr. Bhandary and Mr. Pandey argued that the quantity of charas seized was an “intermediate quantity” under NDPS guidelines. They emphasized that Pashi had no prior criminal record and had been cooperative throughout the investigation process. The defense also argued that Pashi’s young age and local ties made him an unlikely flight risk, presenting no danger to the ongoing investigation. They requested that the court release him on bail, asserting that his continued detention was unnecessary, especially as nothing further needed to be seized or recovered.
Prosecution’s Stand
The prosecution, represented by Advocate Mr. Rajput, opposed the bail application, arguing that Pashi’s possession of the charas was intended for sale, branding him as a potential drug peddler. Prosecutors also highlighted that other suspects connected to the case had not yet been apprehended and that Pashi’s release could obstruct the ongoing investigation. They requested the court to deny bail, fearing that Pashi’s release might result in tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
Court’s Observations and Decision
Judge K.P. Kshirsagar, presiding over the special NDPS court in Mumbai, examined the arguments and evidence. He noted that while the recovered quantity of charas constituted an intermediate amount, the statutory limitations under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, often invoked in cases involving large quantities of narcotics, did not apply here.
The judge pointed out that, as a young, first-time offender with no past criminal record, Pashi’s release was unlikely to impact the investigation negatively. Further, the court observed that personal liberty is a foundational right, stating that detaining Pashi unnecessarily would be punitive rather than preventive. Judge Kshirsagar emphasized the presumption of innocence and reminded the court that bail’s purpose is to ensure an accused’s presence at trial, not to punish prematurely.
Bail Conditions
Judge Kshirsagar granted bail with several strict conditions to ensure the defendant’s compliance:
- Pashi must submit a personal bond of INR 50,000, along with one or more sureties of the same amount.
- He must cooperate fully with law enforcement and be available for interrogation whenever required.
- He is prohibited from influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence.
- He must commit to the timely conclusion of his trial.
- Pashi is restricted from committing any further offenses while on bail.
- He and his surety must provide verified contact information and a residential address upon bail execution.
These terms aim to secure Pashi’s cooperation with authorities and mitigate any risk of non-compliance.
Context and Legal Significance
This case highlights ongoing debates around narcotics legislation, especially regarding young individuals involved in non-commercial narcotic possession. Given the NDPS Act’s stringent provisions, the court’s decision underscores the principle that punishment should follow a fair trial and that first-time, non-violent offenders deserve due consideration, particularly in cases involving minor amounts.
This bail ruling is a reminder of the judiciary’s cautious balancing act in cases where individual liberty and societal security are at odds.
