Ajay IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 641 OF 2025 Nasir Umar Shaikh @ Chacha .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent ....................

 Mr. Anil G. Lalla a/w. Ms. Rithika Yerra, Mr. Yash Pulekar and Ms.

Ankita Rahod, Advocates for Applicant.

 Mr. R.M. Pethe, APP for Respondent – State.

 Mr. Sopan B. Wadkar, PSI Pairavi, Sakinaka Police Station present.

......…...........

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

DATE : MAY 09, 2025.

P.C.:

1. Heard Mr. Lalla, learned Advocate for Applicant and Mr.

Pethe, learned APP for Respondent - State.

2. This is an Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking Regular Bail in connection with Special LAC / C.R. No.787 of 2023 registered with Sakinaka Police Station for offences under Section 8(c), 22(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “NDPS Act”). There are total 20 Accused persons in the crime and Applicant before me is arraigned as Accused No.9. He is arrested on 20.08.2023 and is incarcerated since 1 year, 8 months and 20 days pending trial.

3. Applicant is a senior citizen aged 65 years. In order dated 24.04.2025, this Court has already taken cognizance of the medical ailment suffered by the present Applicant namely Buschke-Löwenstein tumor (BLT) which is a rare, locally aggressive and potentially malignant neoplasm that arises from pre-existing condylomatous lesions caused by the human papillomavirus (HPV) which is supported by the medical report issued by the Chief Medical Officer dated

23.04.2025.

4. On merits of the matter, Mr. Lalla, learned Advocate for Applicant would submit that indictment of present Applicant by prosecution is solely on the basis of confessional statement given by co- accused No.8 and nothing more. He would submit that there is non- compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act as the information leading to arrest of Applicant has not been reduced in writing nor it is forwarded to the superior by the empowered officer. He would submit that there is further non-compliance of the provisions of Section 50 of NDPS Act and has drawn my attention to page No.197 of the Application to submit that the empowered officer has only obtained signature of Applicant on the appraisal letter and there is no endorsement of his purported refusal to exercise his right under Section 50 of the NDPS Act.

4.1. He would submit that out of the 20 accused persons in the crime, 6 have been enlarged on bail and hence would persuade the Court to consider the ground of parity. He would submit that Applicant has no criminal antecedents. He would submit that Applicant is incarcerated since 1 year, 8 months and 20 days and trial has not yet commenced. He would submit that prosecution has enlisted 37 probable witnesses which they desire to examine in trial which would not be completed in the near foreseeable future. Considering the above transgressions of statutory provisions coupled with indictment of Applicant solely on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused and his medical condition, he would urge the Court to allow the Bail Application.

5. Mr. Pethe, learned APP for State has strongly resisted the Bail Application. He would submit that the contraband seized from the conscious possession of Applicant in question is in commercial quantity i.e. 1 kg 250 grams and hence Applicant will have to meet the rigours of the provisions under Section 37 of NDPS Act. He would submit that there is sufficient material on record to establish complicity of Applicant in the crime as supplier of the contraband MD. He would submit that present Applicant arraigned as Accused No.9 has further led to disclosure of other co-accused and he is a part of drug-trafficking chain. He would submit that if Applicant is released on bail, there are chances of he tampering evidence or influencing witnesses and hence considering the overall material on record, he would urg