MOHAMMED FIROZ Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the applicant for regular bail in connection with an FIR being Prohibition Case Register No. 5090 of 2019 registered with DCB Police Station, Ahmedabd for the offences under Sections 8(c), 20(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

(2.) Heard Mr. Bhadrish Raju, learned advocate for Mr. A.S. Timbalia, learned advocate for the applicant and Ms. C.M. Shah, learned APP for the respondent-State.

(3.) Mr. Raju, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case and he has nothing to do with the present offence. He submits that the applicant was not apprehended from the spot. He further submits that the applicant has been arrested on the basis of statement of co-accused and call details. It is his further submissions that the there is no allegation of possession of contraband from the applicant and no incriminating article was seized from the house of the applicant on 16.11.2019 when search was carried out at the house of the applicant. It is his submission that no cannabis were recovered on 16.11.2019 when the raid was carried out. Hence, section 20(b) of the NDPS Act is not applicable in the facts of the case. He submits that as per the allegation in the FIR, total quantity of Mephedrone was 0.305 gms. and that of cocaine was 0.051 gms. which was recovered from co-accused Ramesh Dipchand Rathod. He submits that 0.305 gms of Mephedrone constitute commercial quantity while 0.051 gms. of cocaine is less than commercial quantity and more than small quantity. He submits that the applicant had left India on 14.11.2019 for Umrah pilgrimage at Makkah. Accordingly, he was not present when the offence is alleged to have been committed. He submits that chargesheet has already been filed and, therefore, now there is no possibility of tampering with the evidence of prosecution nor the applicant is likely to abscond. He, therefore, submits that considering the nature of allegations and nature of the evidence, the applicant may be enlarged on bail on appropriate terms and conditions.