Non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act can grant bail, but each case must consider specific facts preventing blanket application of legal principles.

ORDER:-

1. Both applications are arising out of the same Crime bearing No.0084 of 2021 registered with Police Station Osmanabad Rural, District Osmanabad, for the offences punishable under Section 8 (c), 20(b)(ii)(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act’ for short).

2. The applicants are brothers. They have claimed bail mainly because the investigation officer failed to comply with Sections 42 (1) and (2) of the NDPS Act. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants has vehemently argued that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the Crime. The applicants have been languishing in jail since 16.04.2021 and 21.02.2022. Before the charge sheet, the bail applications of the applicants were rejected by the Special Judge. Applicant Pintu Shinde had also moved an application for bail bearing Bail Application No.1645 of 2021 before this Court after the charge sheet. However, he withdrew the application with the liberty to file a fresh bail application if the charge was not framed within six months. Then he filed a fresh bail application. A supplementary charge sheet has been filed against applicant Raju since he absconded. On 07.09.2022, the learned Special Judge rejected his bail application

3. The learned counsel for the applicants has argued that the mandatory compliances with Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act have not been complied with. The co-accused have been released on bail. Hence, the applicants are entitled to bail. They have been languishing in jail for many months, and nothing has to be recovered from them. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants has relied upon various case laws as follows :

1. Sarija Banu Alias Janarthani Alias Janani and Another Vs. State, Through Inspector of Police , (2004) 12 SCC 266.

2. Smt. Najma Abdul Shaikh Vs. The State of Maharashtra in Criminal Bail Application No.1311 of 2012 decided by the Principal Seat at Bombay dated 23.10.2012.

3. Bipin Kumar Ramsagar Pandit @ Saxena Vs. State of Maharashtra , 2014 (1) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 193.

4. Rajaram Kadu Vs. The State of Maharashtra in Bail Application No.2108 of 2016 decided by the Principal Seat at Bombay dated 13.06.2017.

5. Raju Bhavlal Pawar and Ors Vs. The State of Maharashtra, 2021 ALL MR (Cri) 4651.

6. Sau. Aruna w/o. Omprakash Shukla Vs. Omprakash s/o. Devanand Shukla, 2021 ALL MR (Cri) 4655.

7. Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713.

8. Angela Harish Sontakke Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 3 SCC 723.

9. Sunil Vasantrao Phulbande and another Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2002 (3) Mh.L.J. 689.

10. Baba Sow Chandekar and another Vs The State of Telangana in Criminal Petition No.4428 of 2022 decided by the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad dated 05.07.2022.

11. Rajendra @ Dada s/o Chagan Kale and another Vs. The State of Maharashtra in Bail Application No.313 of 2022 decided by this Court dated 28.06.2022.

12. Shaikh Maheboob Shaikh Mahemood Vs. The State of Maharashtra in Criminal Application No.6569 of 2017 dated 22.02.2018.

4. The Court has gone through the above case laws. The law has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above case laws and followed by the High Court was that non-compliance with Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act entitles the applicant to bail.

However, every case has its own facts.

5. The learned APP has strongly opposed the applications. He has vehemently argued that the earlier bail application of applicant Pintu has been rejected on merit by this Court. He was granted the liberty to file a fresh application for bail if the charge is not framed within six mon