Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 8642
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
ILESH J. VORA, P. M. RAVAL, JJ
SAHID KASAM SUMARA – Appellant
Versus
NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY – Respondent
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (REGULAR BAIL) NO. 2197 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MR ZUBIN BHARDA, MR A A ZABUAWALA
For the Respondents: MR KSHITIJ M AMIN, MR LB DABHI
The court ruled that serious offenses involving international drug trafficking and substantial evidence against the accused do not warrant bail.
Headnote:(A) National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 - Section 21 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 8(c), 21(b), 24, 25, 27(A), 29 - Indian Penal Code - Section 120-B - UAPA Act, 1967 - Regular bail application - Appellant not named in FIR; no role attributed; prosecution failed to establish connection with offence or recovery from appellant - Serious offences with international ramifications deemed not suitable for bail. (Paras 1, 11, 12)
(B) Appellate jurisdiction in bail matters imposes scrutiny regarding the nature of accusations, involvement, and risk of tampering with evidence, specifically related to serious narcotic crimes with transnational elements. (Paras 1, 12)
Facts of the case:
Appellant is accused of large-scale drug trafficking, linked to international drug cartels, and has claimed wrongful implication based on weak circumstantial evidence. Prosecution provided strong evidence against the appellant, including financial transactions and witness corroboration.
Findings of Court:
The court found sufficient material to establish a substantial prima facie case against the appellant, denying bail on grounds of public health risks linked to cross-border narcotics trafficking.
Issues: Whether the appellant's lack of explicit mention in the FIR and dependence on co-accused statements justify the granting of bail was the main concern.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that serious charges with documented international trafficking implications necessitate strict scrutiny, thus refusing bail due to evidence of the appellant’s involvement.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal under nia act regarding bail (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding the appellant's lack of direct involvement (Para 3 , 5) |
| 3. court's observations on the evidence and seriousness of the offense (Para 4 , 6 , 8 , 10) |
| 4. court's ruling on the presence of prima facie evidence (Para 11) |
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL)
1. The present appeal is preferred under section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act 2008 in connection with the FIR being registered as ATS PS-III-CR No.1 of 2018 registered at ATS Police Station, District Ahmedabad dated 12.8.2018, re-registered as FIR No.26 of 2020 NIA/DLI registered with NIA Head Quarters, Delhi, District New Delhi dated 2.7.2020 for the offences repunishable under sections 8(c), 21(b), 24, 25, 27(A) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985, section 120-B of Indian Penal Code and sections 17 and 18 of the UAPA Act 1967 and has prayed to allow the appeal by releasing the appellant on regular bail.
2. The appellant had preferred Misc. Application No.12 of 2023 before the learned Special NIA Court, Ahmedabad for enlarging him on bail which came to be rejected by the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated
6.4.2023.
3. Learned advocate Mr.Zubin Bharda appearing for the appellant had submitted that :
(a) That the present appellant is not named in the FIR.
(b) That there is no whisper in the FIR and no role is attributed to the appellant in the said FIR.
(c) On perusing the statement of Abdul Aziz Bhagad who was arrested at the spot with muddamal has not revealed the name of the appellant in the first two statements. However, subsequently the name of the appellant came to be revealed.
(d) That from the papers of the chargesheet, the Investigating Officer is not able to connect the present appellant in the offence in question.
(e) That the prosecution has failed to prima facie point out the presence of the appellant at any place nor was he found with any contraband substance and the appellant has been wrongly implicated in the offence on the basis of the statement of the co-accused.
(f) That on perusal of the chargesheet papers, the main accused are from Pakistan i.e. Bhaijan and Nabi Bax who are mastermind of the offence and have supplied contraband from Pakistan to Amritsar, Punjab and loaded heroin contraband article from Pakistan to the Port Salaya, Kachchh and thus, the appellant is not connected with any offence whatsoever and has been wrongly implicated in the offence merely on the basis of mobile number, call details, vehicle and other travel details of the accused persons. However, the prosecution could not prima facie point out from the chargesheet papers with regard to involvement of the appellant in the alleged offence.
(g) That there is no recovery or discovery of the contraband article from the appellant.
(h) That except three statements of Abdul Aziz Bhagad who is alleged to have brought drugs in his fisherman boat at Salaya village and there is no other connecting evidence, more particularly, when the alleged offence is of the year 2018 and supplementary chargesheet against the appellant is registered as NIA Special Case No.2 of 2022.
4. Learned advocate Mr.Kshitij Amin appears for respondent No.1 and learned APP Mr.L.B.Dabhi appears for respondent No.2 – State.
5. Relying upon the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the NIA – respondent No.1, learned advocate Mr.Kshitij Amin would submit that :
(a) That during the investigation, it is revealled that on the direction of Arshad Razak Sota @ Raju Dubai – accused No.4, Rafik Adam Sumra – accused No.2 and Shahid Kasam Sumra – accused No.11 i.e. present appellant delivered total 295 kg out of 500 kg of heroin to Nazir Ahmed – accused No.3, Manzoor Ahmad – accused No.5 and Simranjit Singh Sandhu – WA-2, whereas remaining 200 kg heroin was delivered by the appellant and Razak Adam Sumra – accused No.6 to Karim Md.Siraj –
accused No.7 and Sunil Vithal Barmase – accused No.8.
(b) It is further arg
