Mumbai, April 6, 2024 – The Special Judge for NDPS Cases, Greater Mumbai, has granted bail to S Javeed Basha, accused in a case involving the seizure of Pseudoephedrine. Special Judge B.Y. Phad, presiding over Court Room No. 44, allowed Basha’s bail application (NDPS Bail Application No. 387/2024), citing the controlled substance status of Pseudoephedrine and the consequent inapplicability of stringent bail conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Basha was arrested by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) in connection with F. No. NCB/MZU/CR-01/2024, registered under sections 9A read with 25A, 28, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.

The Allegations and Arrest:

According to the NCB, 3.88 kgs of white powder, suspected to be Pseudoephedrine, were seized from a courier parcel at M/s. Aramax India Pvt. Ltd. The parcel was consigned by Rajeev Sharma and destined for George Erwin in New Zealand. Basha and another person, Azhar Basha, were identified as being connected to the booking of the parcel and were subsequently arrested. The NCB alleged that Basha was involved in the conspiracy, distribution, and transportation of the controlled substance.

Defense Arguments:

Basha, through his advocate Zehra Charania, argued that he was falsely implicated and that the seized substance was a controlled substance, not a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance. He contended that Pseudoephedrine is covered by the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Regulation of Controlled Substances) Order, 2013, and is punishable under Section 25A of the NDPS Act, which does not attract the stringent bail conditions of Section 37. He also argued that he was neither the sender nor the receiver of the parcel and that nothing was recovered from him.

Prosecution’s Objections:

The NCB, represented by SPP Vibhavari Pathak, opposed the bail application. They argued that the investigation was at a preliminary stage, that Basha was involved in the conspiracy and transportation of the controlled substance, and that his release could lead to repetition of the crime, absconding, and tampering with evidence.

Court’s Analysis and Decision:

Judge Phad, after hearing arguments and reviewing the record, made the following observations:

• Controlled Substance: The court acknowledged that Pseudoephedrine is a controlled substance and not a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance.
• Inapplicability of Section 37: The court concluded that the stringent bail conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act were not applicable in this case.
• Clean Antecedents: The court noted that the accused appeared to have clean antecedents and was well-rooted in society.
• Conditions to Ensure Compliance: The court decided to grant bail subject to stringent conditions to ensure the accused’s presence and prevent any interference with the investigation.

Conditions of Bail:

The court granted Basha bail on the following conditions:

• He must execute a personal bond of ₹60,000 and provide one or two solvent sureties of the same amount.
• He must report to the NCB, Mumbai Zonal Unit, every Sunday.
• He is prohibited from leaving the jurisdiction of Tamil Nadu without permission.
• He is prohibited from contacting co-accused, witnesses, or any individuals associated with the case.
• He must maintain a stable residence and inform the court and investigating officer of any change in address.
• He must provide his active mobile number and report any changes.
• He must not interfere with the investigation.
• He must surrender his passport or file an affidavit stating he does not possess one.
• He is prohibited from engaging in activities related to the offense.
• He must comply with all directions from law enforcement.
• He must provide a list of three blood relatives with their addresses and work addresses.

Significance of the Order:

This order highlights the court’s emphasis on:

• Distinction Between Controlled Substances and Narcotic Drugs/Psychotropic Substances: The court recognized the legal distinction between these categories and the different bail conditions applicable to each.
• Inapplicability of Section 37: The court correctly applied the law by recognizing that Section 37 does not apply to controlled substances.
• Conditions to Ensure Compliance: The court imposed stringent conditions to balance the accused’s right to bail with the need to ensure a fair trial and prevent any potential risks.

This ruling underscores the importance of accurately classifying substances under the NDPS Act and applying the appropriate legal provisions accordingly.