KALU SAHEBRAO MOHITE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant is seeking bail, since charge-sheeted in relation to C.R.No.16 of 2018 registered with ANC, Azad Maidan Unit, Mumbai for the offences punishable under Sections 8(C) , 20(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , 1985 (for short, "the NDPS Act ").

(2.) After filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant moved an application before the Special Judge, Greater Mumbai, which was rejected. Failure of his attempt to seek release in the wake of pandemic on 19th August, 2020 has constrained him to approach this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the applicant, in the backdrop of the charge-sheet, submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present offence and there is no evidence against him in the form of any incriminating material. The submission is that the applicant had taken a lift in the alleged Balero pick-up jeep coming to Mumbai and he was totally unaware about the presence of contraband i.e. ganja in the alleged pick-up jeep. He has no concern whatsoever with the other co-accused nor they are his friends or relatives. According to the learned counsel, there is no recovery of any narcotic drug or incriminating article from him nor any statement contained in the charge-sheet, assign any role to him as alleged in the complaint. He is neither the owner of the vehicle nor possess the said pick-up jeep. He goes further and argue that going by the charge-sheet, there is no meeting of mind of the applicant with the co-accused and merely because they were travelling together and having the same surname would not be sufficient to implicate him. The learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that there is no compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Act and in particular Sections 42 , 50 , 55 and 57 of the NDPS Act. According to the counsel, alleged raid was conducted on Service Road after crossing the Airoli Bridge and, hence, the official superior within whose jurisdiction the offence was allegedly committed should have ensured the compliance of the provisions. The search was conducted before sunrise, without any authorisation under Section 40(1)(2) of the NDPS Act and there was no Gazetted Officer present at the time of conduct of the alleged raid is the submission of the learned counsel. He also would advance his submission pointing out the discrepancy of the samples carried by the carrier and the CA Report that was received. Further, accused No.2-Nandlal has been released on bail by this Court is an another submission.