Mumbai, March 7, 2024 – The Special Court for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, at Greater Bombay has rejected the bail application of Mohammed Saad Kapadia, accused No. 3 in a case involving the seizure of commercial quantities of Mephedrone (MD). Additional Sessions Judge K.P. Kshirsagar, presiding over Court Room No. 43, denied the bail application (Criminal Bail Application No. 447 of 2024), citing the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the ongoing investigation.

Kapadia was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 71/2023, registered at the Anti-Narcotics Cell (ANC), Ghatkopar Unit, Mumbai, for offenses punishable under Section 8(c) read with Section 22(c) (possession of commercial quantity of narcotic drug) and Section 29 (criminal conspiracy) of the NDPS Act.

The Allegations and Arrest:

According to the prosecution, on August 4, 2023, 60 grams of Mephedrone (MD) were recovered from co-accused Javed @ Bali Nazir Khan, and another 60 grams were recovered from co-accused Subhan Sikandar Sayyed. During the investigation, co-accused No. 1 disclosed that he had procured the contraband from co-accused No. 2, who, in turn, disclosed that he had procured it from Kapadia. Kapadia was arrested on February 12, 2024.

Defense Arguments:

Kapadia, through his advocate Ajay Dubey, argued that he was falsely implicated in the case. He claimed that there was no recovery from his possession, that he had no connection with the co-accused, and that he was being targeted because he had previously filed complaints at the police station. He emphasized his clean criminal record and his willingness to abide by any court conditions.

Prosecution’s Objections:

The prosecution, represented by APP Tarange, opposed the bail application. They argued that the recovered quantities of Mephedrone were commercial, that co-accused statements implicated Kapadia, and that Call Detail Record (CDR) reports revealed a nexus between Kapadia and the co-accused. They emphasized that the investigation against Kapadia was ongoing and that he had not satisfied the stringent conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Court’s Analysis and Decision:

Judge Kshirsagar, after reviewing the material on record, made the following observations:

• Commercial Quantity: The court acknowledged that the recovered quantities of Mephedrone were commercial.
• Co-accused Statements: The court noted that the statements of the co-accused, admissible for investigation purposes, implicated Kapadia.
• CDR Evidence: The court highlighted the CDR reports indicating a link between Kapadia and the co-accused.
• Ongoing Investigation: The court emphasized that the investigation against Kapadia was still pending.
• Section 37 of NDPS Act: The court emphasized the stringent conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which require the accused to demonstrate reasonable grounds to believe they are not guilty and that they are not likely to commit similar offenses.
• Lack of Evidence from Accused: The court found that Kapadia had not provided sufficient evidence to satisfy the requirements of Section 37.
• Prima Facie Case: The court concluded that a prima facie case was made out against Kapadia under Section 8(c) read with Section 22(c) and Section 29 of the NDPS Act.
• Risk of Tampering: The court expressed concerns about the possibility of Kapadia tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses if released.
• Public Interest: The court emphasized the need to protect the interest of society at large and the uncalled-for liberal approach in granting bail in such NDPS cases.

Significance of the Order:

This order underscores the court’s strict adherence to the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, particularly in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics. It highlights the following key points:

• Stringent Bail Conditions: The NDPS Act imposes stringent conditions for granting bail, requiring the accused to demonstrate their innocence and lack of propensity to re-offend.
• Co-accused Statements and CDR Evidence: The court considered the statements of co-accused and CDR reports as relevant evidence in determining the accused’s involvement.
• Ongoing Investigation: The court recognized the importance of allowing the investigation to proceed without hindrance.
• Public Interest: The court prioritized the protection of society from drug-related offenses.

This ruling serves as a reminder of the challenges faced by accused persons in obtaining bail in NDPS cases, particularly when commercial quantities of narcotics are involved.