Mumbai, September 30, 2023 – In a setback for the defense, Mr. Sarib Mohammed Saeed Qureshi, 25, accused No. 2 in a narcotics case, has been denied bail by the Special Court for Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Gr. Bombay. The order, passed today by Additional Sessions Judge (C.R.43) Mr. K.P. Kshirsagar in NDPS Bail Application No. 780 of 2023, underscores the court’s concern regarding the ongoing investigation and the potential for the accused to obstruct justice if released.

Mr. Qureshi was apprehended in connection with Spl. LAC/C.R. No. 715/2023, registered at Shivaji Nagar police station, Mumbai, for offenses punishable under sections 8(c) read with 22(b) (pertaining to possession of intermediate quantity of narcotic drugs) and section 29 (criminal conspiracy) of the Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

According to the prosecution’s case, on August 13, 2023, 18 grams of Mephedrone (MD) were recovered from the possession of co-accused No. 1, Naeem Amin Shaikh. Subsequent investigation, based on information provided by Mr. Shaikh, led to the arrest of Mr. Qureshi on August 16, 2023, from whom 11 grams of Mephedrone (MD) were allegedly recovered. During the investigation, Mr. Qureshi reportedly stated that he had procured the contraband from co-accused No. 3, Karim Kazim Sayyad @ Nazim Bidi, who was subsequently arrested.

Advocate Ms. Nagma Khan, representing Mr. Qureshi, argued for bail, emphasizing that this was the first bail application filed by her client and no other such application was pending in any higher court. She pointed out that the quantity of Mephedrone recovered from Mr. Qureshi was 11 grams, which falls under the intermediate quantity as defined under the NDPS Act, thus arguing that the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act (which imposes limitations on granting bail for offenses involving commercial quantities) were not applicable. Ms. Khan further submitted that Mr. Qureshi is a resident of Mumbai and was willing to abide by any conditions imposed by the court.

However, the Learned APP Mr. P.J. Tarange strongly opposed the bail application. He highlighted the recovery of 18 grams of Mephedrone from co-accused No. 1, which subsequently led to the recovery of 11 grams from Mr. Qureshi. The Ld. APP argued that there was positive material on record indicating a nexus between Mr. Qureshi and the co-accused. Furthermore, he stated that co-accused No. 3 had disclosed purchasing the Mephedrone from wanted accused Arif and Mushti, who are yet to be apprehended. The prosecution contended that the prima facie evidence suggested a connection between Mr. Qureshi, the co-accused, and the wanted individuals, and releasing Mr. Qureshi at this stage could impede the ongoing investigation.

After considering the arguments and the material on record, Judge Kshirsagar rejected Mr. Qureshi’s bail application. The court noted that while the cumulative quantity of contraband recovered from Mr. Qureshi and the co-accused amounted to an intermediate quantity, the prima facie appreciation of the evidence suggested that Mr. Qureshi was involved in drug peddling. The court found no substance in the defense’s contention that there was no material to show a nexus or conspiracy between Mr. Qureshi and the co-accused. The fact that wanted accused were still at large was also a significant consideration for the court.

Judge Kshirsagar stated that the investigation was admittedly not yet complete and that there was no prima facie reason to doubt the genuineness of the prosecution’s case. The court also highlighted the possibility of Mr. Qureshi tampering with or influencing witnesses or becoming involved in similar offenses if released on bail at this stage, given the nature of the crime and the quantity of contraband seized. The court concluded that further detention of Mr. Qureshi was necessary to facilitate the ongoing investigation.

Furthermore, the court opined that the accusations against Mr. Qureshi and the prima facie material suggested an active role in the alleged drug peddling activities. The offense was deemed heinous, and the investigation so far indicated a nexus between Mr. Qureshi and the co-accused. The court stated that a high degree of evidence was not required at this stage to establish conspiracy and that Mr. Qureshi had failed to prima facie demonstrate his non-involvement in the crime.

In conclusion, Judge Kshirsagar held that releasing Mr. Qureshi at this juncture would likely be prejudicial to the interest of society at large, and a liberal approach to bail in such NDPS Act offenses was unwarranted. Based on the prima facie appreciation of the material, the nature and gravity of the offense, and the incomplete investigation, the court found no justifiable grounds for granting bail. Consequently, NDPS Bail Application No. 780/2023 was rejected.

This order underscores the strict approach taken by the courts in NDPS cases, particularly when the investigation is ongoing and there is a perceived risk of obstruction of justice. Mr. Qureshi will remain in custody pending further developments in the case.