IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NEELA GOKHALE
Mohd. Munis Shafir Shaikh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
NEELA GOKHALE, J.
1. By this Application, the Applicant seeks his enlargement on bail in connection with C.R. No. 21 of 2025 dated 7th January, 2025, registered with the Kalwa Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 22 (c), 8(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS’) and Sections 18 -A, 18H read with Sections 27 (c) and 28(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 6th January, 2025, on a specific intelligence received by the Crime Branch, Unit – 1, Thane that some person is dealing in purchase and sale of cough syrup bottles containing Codeine. Accordingly, a trap was set and the person who is the Applicant herein was found in possession of 240 bottles of Codeine Phosphate and Triprolidine HCI Syrup. After following the due process of under the NDPS Act, said bottles were seized and panchanama was recorded. Consequently, the FIR was registered and the Applicant was arrested on the same day.
3. The Applicant has made an application seeking bail before the Special Judge (NDPS), Thane, however, by order dated 9th September, 2025, the said Application was rejected. Hence, the A
The court emphasized that discrepancies in evidence and lack of criminal history justify granting bail, highlighting the importance of credible and consistent evidence in drug-related offenses.
Procedural lapses in drug-related cases can justify bail, especially in light of the defendant's clean record and compliance issues with statutory requirements.
Compliance with procedural requirements does not negate the integrity of seized evidence if custody is maintained, impacting bail decisions in narcotics cases.
The court affirmed the strict compliance requirements of the NDPS Act in bail applications, emphasizing the need to demonstrate reasonable grounds for believing in the accused's innocence, particular....
Non-compliance with mandatory provisions of Section 52A of the NDPS Act vitiates the prosecution's case, warranting bail.
The court held that strict compliance with licensing conditions under the NDPS Act is essential, and significant illegal possession of narcotics justifies rejection of bail applications.
Discrepancies in evidence under the NDPS Act can justify bail if the applicant meets the twin test and has no criminal antecedents.
In cases of prolonged detention pending trial, especially with procedural deficiencies, the personal liberty of the accused must be prioritized, warranting the granting of bail.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.