SURAJ @ SURYA DINESH MALVIYA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Bhangde, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Damle, learned APP for the non-applicant/State.

(2.) The applicant has been arraigned for the offence punishable under Ss. 20, 29 and 27-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "the NDPS Act") in Crime No.307 of 2020.

(3.) Mr. Bhangde, learned counsel for the applicant submits, that merely on the basis of suspicion, on the statement of one Kanhaiyya Dhurve, who claims, that at the instance of the applicant, he had transferred a sum of Rs.5,000.00 in the account of the accused No.1 Sheikh Ansar Sheikh Israil, the applicant has been made an accused in the present matter. The other instance is the statement under Sec. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act of the above accused No.1, which states, that he had received Rs.10,000.00 from the applicant in cash for purchase of Ganja. He submits, that the statement of the accused No.1, who is the co-accused in the matter, is inadmissible and cannot be used against the applicant. He further submits, that the person in whose house the two bags of Ganja totally admeasuring 20.770 kg had been seized namely Aarju Deshbhratar has not been made an accused at all. That apart, he submits, that the other co-accused namely Dipesh Kasadekar and Sheikh Salim have already released on bail by the learned trial Court and the role of the applicant, is identical to that of Sheikh Salim of having given money for the purchase of the contraband. He therefore submits, that the applicant considering the above is required to be released on bail.