JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned counsel Mr.Maneshinde for the applicant, learned counsel Mr.Shirsat for the Union of India and learned A.P.P. Ms.Takalkar, for the State.

2. The applicant, who is arraigned as an accused in NDPS Special Case arising out of F.No.NCB/MZU/CR-24/2021, seek his release on bail on the ground of his false implication and also on the ground that there is no material complied against him in the charge-sheet, which would accuse him of offence of alleged fnancing for illicit trade in drug. The relief is also sought on the ground that the applicant came to be arrested on 30/03/2021 and, since now the investigation is complete and the charge-sheet is fled before the Special Judge, his further incarceration is unnecessary.

3. With the assistance of the respective counsel, I have perused the material compiled in the charge-sheet.

4. Learned counsel Mr.Maneshinde would submit that the applicant has been roped in the present C.R. in a malafde manner and the case against him, built by the prosecution, is based on conjectures, speculations and sweeping assumptions. He would submit that 31 tablets of Alprazolam, having total weight of 4.5 grams, are alleged to have been seized. Even accepting the case of the prosecution as it is, this quantity would fall within the ambit of Sec. 22(a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, "the Act") and on conviction, at the most, the applicant is liable for maximum imprisonment upto one year or can be levied with fne or with both. Apart from this, learned counsel would submit that the statements of accused Nos.2 and 4, recorded under Sec. 67 of the Act, are of no consequence in the light of the latest decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1 , which at the end, would not be admissible during his trial and cannot lay the basis for his incarceration. As far as the statements of the witnesses, recorded under Sec. 164 of Cr.P.C. is concerned, learned counsel would submit that they are extremely vague and contain bald allegations, which are inherently improbable and these statements fnd no corroboration in the complaint. Apart from this, the submission is, the investigation is neither fair nor impartial. Learned counsel has submitted that the applicant arrived in Mumbai at 1.35 p.m. on the date on which he is alleged to have been detained, but the media repeatedly displayed that he was detained from Mumbai Airport in connection with the drug case and the submission is, he being a well-known celebrity, it was widely publicised that in the evening of 30/03/2021, he was detained by NCB at Mumbai Airport, while he was returning from Rajasthan. Learned counsel supported his submission by the air-ticket in his possession. In utter contrast, my attention is invited to the panchnama dtd. 30/03/2021 where it is shown that the process has begun at 2.55 p.m. and ended at 16.40 hrs., which create loophole in the prosecution version.

5. Per contra, learned counsel Mr.Shirsat, vehemently opposed the application and he would rely upon the complaint fled by the NCB and fall back on the affdavit fled by the authorised offcer, opposing the application. Mr.Shirsat would submit that on the basis of the specifc information received, the house of accused No.1 was raided and 1.973 Kg.Mephedrone was recovered. Thereafter, raid was conducted in the house of accused No.2, where contraband of 61.0 grams in form of Mephedrone and 160.0 gram Ephedrine came to be seized. His submission is, upon the information supplied by the two accused persons, raid was conducted in the fat of the applicant where Alprazolam, in the quantity of 4.5 gram, was seized and after recording his statement under Sec. 67 of the Act, since the applicant was found to be involved in the commission of offence, he came to be arrested.

6. Mr.Shirsat would vehemently submit that, according to the prosecution, it is not only the quantity of Alprazolam, which wo