Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Bom) 1759

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Amit Borkar, J.
Arshad Karar Khan - Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Bail Application No. 286 of 2025
Decided On : 15-10-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant : Mr. Taraq Sayed
For the Respondent: Mrs. Rajashree Newton, APP, Mr.S.A. Mehetar, HC, Anti Narcotics Cell

The court held that in cases of commercial quantity under the NDPS Act, bail can only be granted if the accused demonstrates reasonable grounds for believing innocence and that he will not reoffend, which was not satisfied here.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 8(c), 22(c), 29, 37 and 54 - Bail application - Accused seeking bail for offences involving possession of 500 grams of Mephedrone - Prosecution established compliance with statutory procedures under the NDPS Act for seizure - Applicant’s previous criminal antecedents considered - Conditions for bail not satisfied - Application for bail rejected. (Paras 1, 7, 34, 38)

(B) Presumption of culpability - Under Section 54, the burden shifts to the accused to provide a plausible explanation for possession of narcotic drugs following establishment of prima facie evidence by prosecution - Failure to rebut presumption results in denial of bail. (Paras 29-30, 34)

(C) Strict requirements under Section 37 - In cases of commercial quantity, the court cannot grant bail unless it is satisfied of the accused's innocence and likelihood of refraining from further offences - Legislative intent to prevent drug trafficking fully acknowledged. (Paras 34-35)

Table of Content
1. application for bail in ndps case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments for and against bail. (Para 4 , 5)
3. serious allegations and statutory conditions for bail. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
4. procedural compliance in seizure and verification. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
5. chemical analysis confirms contraband nature. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
6. field test relevance in ndps cases. (Para 15 , 16 , 17)
7. legislative intent regarding sample integrity. (Para 18 , 19)
8. genuineness of seizure and discrepancies. (Para 20 , 21 , 22)
9. witness statements support prosecution case. (Para 23 , 24)
10. credibility of panchanama and inventory. (Para 25 , 26)
11. burden of proof shifts to the accused. (Para 27 , 28 , 29)
12. prima facie case against the applicant established. (Para 30 , 31 , 32)
13. public interest vs personal liberty in drug cases. (Para 33 , 34)
14. court’s discretion in bail under ndps act. (Para 35 , 36)
15. rejection of bail application. (Para 37 , 38)

JUDGMENT :

Amit Borkar, J.

1. This application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) seeking regular bail. The applicant seeks his release in connection with Crime Register No. 72 of 2024 registered with APMC Police Station, Navi Mumbai, for offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 22(c), and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”).

2. The prosecution case is that on 21 February 2024, Police Constable P. H. Tayde received specific information that Arshad Khan, residing at Lodha Pallava, Dombivali, would arrive between 19:15 hours and 19:30 hours at Pendhar Bridge Phata, Kamboli- Shilphata Road, Taloja, Navi Mumbai, to sell Mephedrone (“MD”) to his customers. The said information was reduced to writing and forwarded to the superior officers for obtaining authorization as required under Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act. Two panch witnesses were arranged, and the raiding team proceeded to the spot and maintained surveillance.

3. Around 19:15 hours, a person matching the description given by the informer arrived at the location. The officers intercepted him. On inquiry, he disclosed his name as Arshad Khan, the applicant herein. He was informed of his right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate as required under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. On conducting his personal search, one black bag was recovered from his left pant pocket. On inspection, it was found to contain a small plastic pouch with off- white crystalline powder suspected to be Mephedrone, weighing 500 grams. A mini electronic weighing machine, small plastic bags, and a mobile handset were also found in his possession. The seized articles were sealed and labeled in accordance with the NDPS Act. The applicant was arrested, and FIR No. 72 of 2024 was registered with Taloja Police Station for offences under Section 8(c) read with Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act on 21 February 2024.

4. Learned Advocate Mr. Taraq Sayed for the applicant submitted that the prosecution has not produced any Chemical Analyzer’s report or field test report to show that the seized substance was Mephedrone. He pointed to the seizure panchanama of the mobile phone, which showed that the phone’s location was at Belapur Village, CBD, while the alleged seizure occurred at Pendhar Phata. He further submitted that the certificate issued under Section 52(A)(3) of the NDPS Act bears a seal different from the one on the forwarding form to the Chemical Analyzer, suggesting irregularity. He pointed out that the sample was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory on 11 March 2024, indicating delay. He submitted that there is every possibility that the actual quantity of contraband was less than the commercial quantity. He argued that the applicant’s three previous criminal antecedents cannot, by themselves, be a ground to deny bail.

5. Learned APP Mrs. Newton opposed the application. She submitted that during the personal search of the applicant, conducted in the presence of two panch wit