Greater Bombay, December 17, 2024 – The Special Court for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Greater Bombay, presided over by H.H. the Special Judge S. E. Bangar (Court Room No. 42), has rejected the bail application of Altaf Akhlak Ahmed Khan, a 26-year-old businessman, accused in connection with the possession and alleged sale of 6.17 grams of Mephedrone (MD), a psychotropic substance. The order, pronounced on December 9, 2024, and the detailed judgment released today, the 17th of December, 2024, underscores the stringent approach of the court towards drug-related offenses, particularly under the NDPS Act.
Khan, a resident of Govandi, Shivaji Nagar, Mumbai, was seeking bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) in relation to FIR No. 797 of 2024 registered at the Shivaji Nagar Police Station for offenses under Sections 8(c) and 22(b) of the NDPS Act, 1985. He has been in judicial custody since his arrest on November 9, 2024.
Prosecution’s Allegations and Applicant’s Defense:
According to the prosecution, Khan was allegedly involved in the possession and attempted sale of 6.17 grams of MD. Furthermore, the prosecution claimed that Khan was in regular contact with the main accused, Mohsin Khan, and had purchased the contraband from him on multiple occasions.
In his bail application, Khan, represented by Ld. Advocate Ms. Jyoti Shahu, claimed innocence, asserting that he had been falsely implicated based on the statements of a co-accused. He argued that there was no direct evidence linking him to the possession or sale of the contraband. Khan also highlighted his family circumstances, stating that he is the sole breadwinner for his aged parents. Additionally, he contended that no contraband was recovered directly from him, and the case was solely based on the allegations of the co-accused and call data records. Khan assured the court of his full cooperation with the investigation and promised to abide by any conditions imposed upon his release.
Prosecution’s Strong Opposition:
The prosecution, represented by Ld. APP Mr. R.V. Tiwari, vehemently opposed the bail application, citing the strong evidence pointing towards Khan’s involvement. This evidence, according to the prosecution, included statements from the main accused, call data records indicating communication between Khan and the main accused, and the applicant’s prior criminal antecedents.
The prosecution further emphasized that the investigation was still ongoing, with crucial steps pending, such as the chemical analysis report of the seized Mephedrone and the inventory procedure under Section 52A of the NDPS Act. They argued that releasing Khan at this stage could lead to him tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or continuing to engage in illegal activities. The prosecution also stressed the serious nature of offenses under the NDPS Act and their grave social consequences, particularly concerning the youth.
Court’s Analysis and Findings:
The court framed three key points for determination:
- Whether there is a prima facie case against the applicant under the NDPS Act.
- Whether the applicant satisfies the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
- Whether the applicant’s release would prejudice the ongoing investigation or public interest.
Analyzing Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which imposes stringent conditions for bail, especially in cases involving commercial quantities (though the quantity in this case was intermediate), the court noted that it must be prima facie satisfied of the applicant’s innocence and have reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant will not commit any offense while on bail.
The court also considered relevant case law cited by both parties, including landmark judgments by the Supreme Court on the interpretation and application of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the admissibility of confessional statements under the Act.
Based on the material submitted, including the call data records and the statements of the main accused, the court concluded that there exists a prima facie case against the applicant. The court also acknowledged the pending investigation and the significant risk of the applicant reoffending, given the allegations of repeated purchase of contraband and his prior criminal history. Furthermore, the court recognized the serious social impact of offenses involving illegal narcotic drugs.
Conclusion and Order:
In its final conclusion, the court stated that considering the seriousness of the offense, the prima facie evidence against the applicant, and the stringent conditions stipulated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the applicant did not meet the requirements for bail. The court opined that granting bail at this stage would prejudice the ongoing investigation and be against public interest.
Consequently, the court passed the following order:
- Bail Application No. 955 of 2024 filed by applicant/accused Altaf Akhlak Ahmed Khan is hereby rejected.
- Bail Application No. 955 of 2024 in NDPS Remand Application No. 1333 of 2024 is disposed of.
The court also directed the investigating officer to expedite the pending investigation, particularly the chemical analysis of the seized contraband and compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act.
The judgment, signed by H.H. the Special Judge S. E. Bangar on December 17, 2024, emphasizes the judiciary’s firm stance against drug-related offenses and the rigorous scrutiny applied to bail applications in such cases, balancing individual liberty with the larger societal concerns.