Anticipatory bail under the NDPS Act requires strict scrutiny; substantial evidence indicating involvement in drug trafficking compels rejection of bail despite claims of minor involvement.

JUDGMENT :

ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.

1. The Applicant in the present Application has filed the present proceedings as he apprehends arrest. The present proceedings relate to crime no. 0022 of 2025. The FIR is lodged on 15 February 2025 at 03.28 hours by the Tamalwadi Police Station, Dist. Dharashiv. The alleged offences are under Sections 21 (b) and 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”). The occurrence of the offence is stated to have taken place on 14 February 2025. There are three accused persons in the FIR. The present Applicant was arrayed as accused No.31 in the said charge-sheet dated 16 April 2025, in Special Case No.36 of 2025. The alleged offences under the Sections including in the charge-sheet are Section 8 (c), 21(b), 27 and 29 of the NDPS Act.

Case in FIR:-

2. The case of the prosecution as revealed from the report lodged by the Informant PSI Sudarshan Bharat Kasar, Crime Branch, Osmanabad is that they received secret information of transportation of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances in one vehicle. Accordingly, the police set a trap within jurisdiction of Tamalwadi toll plaza. They apprehended a vehicle i.e. Hyundai Xcent model car of dark blue colour proceeding from Solapur to Tulzapur road. The police having made inquiries with the three persons in the car, gave evasive answers. The Tamalwadi police complied with the mandatory procedure laid down in the NDPS Act for search, seizure of the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances kept in the said vehicle. After conducting panchnama and following the due procedure under the NDPS Act, the said Mephedrone powder a psychotropic substance, weighing 45 grams (50gms being the prescribed commercial quantity under the schedule to the NDPS Act) was then seized from the custody of three accused persons as named in the FIR valued at Rs. 10,75,000/-. In such circumstances, the Informant lodged a report with Tamalwadi Police Station giving rise to registration of Crime No.222 of 2025 in respect of which, the said FIR was lodged on 15 February 2025. Subsequently, as noted above, a charge-sheet is filed where the present Applicant is arrayed as accused No.31.

Submissions:-

3. Mr. Sapkal, learned senior counsel for the Applicant would first submit on the query of the Court with regard to maintainability of anticipatory bail in an NDPS case that such application is both maintainable and entertainable and maintainable under the scheme and provisions of the NDPS Act. There is no bar under Section 37 of the Act to maintain such ABA more particularly in a case where the Applicant/accused has no role so as to attract the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. He would rely on certain judgments cited, which are discussed below in support of his submissions in this regard. He would submit that at the highest, the role attributable to the Applicant is of a consumer where the maximum punishment prescribed under Section 27 of the NDPS Act is of one yea. In such situation , he would submit that this would be a fit case for grant of ABA to this Applicant.

4. Without prejudice to the above, on merits, Mr. Sapkal would submit that the Applicant is falsely implicated in the present crime. He was neither present at the spot of the incident nor has he committed any act which would tantamount to an offence under the NDPS Act. The only role attributed to this Applicant by the prosecution in the charge-sheet is that of consumption of alleged drugs which is also