Bombay High Court
Adil Imtiaz Vohra vs The State Of Maharashtra on 6 April, 2026
2026:BHC-AS:16572
BA-5075-2024 (B).odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
VASANT CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANANDRAO
IDHOL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 5075 OF 2024
Digitally signed by
VASANT ADIL IMTIAZ VOHRA
ANANDRAO
IDHOL VERSUS
Date: 2026.04.07 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
19:58:29 +0530
***
Mr. Anil G. Lalla with Mr.Yash Pulekar and Mr.Rushil Alag for the Applicant.
Mr. H.J. Dedhia, APP for the Respondent - State.
Mr.Mahesh Mule, SPP with Ms.Nidhi Narwekar for the Respondent. Mr.Atmaji Sawant, Sr.PI, DCB CID Unit-7 is present in Court.
***
CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J
RESERVED ON : 24TH MARCH, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 6TH APRIL, 2026
PC:
1. The Applicant seeks bail in connection with Crime No.12/2024 registered with ANC, Ghatkopar Unit, Mumbai for the offences punishable under Section 8(c), 22(c) r/w 29 under N.D.P.S. Act, 1985.
2. In brief it is a case of the prosecution that on 15.02.2024, PI Sawant received specific intelligence with regard to one lady being receiving significant quantity of MD for sale in Mumbai. A trap was laid and after compliance of Section 50 of the Act, search of the said lady was taken. During her search, 641 gm MD came to be recovered. On the basis of PAGE 1 OF 19 ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2026 20:42:04 ::: BA-5075-2024 (B).odt inquiry/interrogation with her, name of accused No.2 was revealed. Accused No.2 was also searched from whom 3 kg of MD was recovered. During further investigation names of accused Nos.3 and 4 i.e. Ejaj and Adil was revealed. They were taken in custody from Surat and were brought to Mumbai. There was further investigation into the crime which led to arrest of several other accused persons and in all 15 accused came to be arrested in connection with this crime. According to the prosecution, a factory at Sangli was raided from where 122 kg and 500 gm of MD was recovered. The prosecution further claims that this crime is extended to more than one State so also internationally. It is also claimed that 3 accused persons are deported from UAE. Now, charge-sheet has been filed against applicant and co-accused.
3. It is a case of the applicant that there is non compliance of Section 42(2) of Act as the information received from accused No.2 has not been reduced in writing and communicated to the superior officer. It is claimed that applicant was not produced before the Magistrate at Surat and hence, there is non compliance of the provisions of Section 50 of Criminal Procedure Code. It is also claimed that the mobile phone seized from the applicant was not kept in sealed condition and as such the possibility of tampering is not ruled out. He also claims that, he was not furnished with grounds of arrest.
PAGE 2 OF 19 ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2026 20:42:04 ::: BA-5075-2024 (B).odt
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no recovery of any contraband from the present applicant and as such, there is no direct material in order to connect him for offences under the Act. It is his further submission that since,the applicant was arrested on the basis of alleged statement of accused No.2, the compliance of Section 42 is essential. According to him, in absence of reducing the said statement in writing and communication thereof to the superior officer has led to non compliance of mandatory provisions thereof and as such the benefit of the same should go to the accused. To support this submission, he placed reliance on the judgment in case of Anwar Husain, 2001 (5) BCR, 691 and Sushant Rasal, order dated 01.02.2023 passed in Bail Application No. 1760/2021. It is his further submission that the mobile phone of the accused after it was seized was admittedly not kept in sealed condition and as such the possibility of tampering exists. Consequently, the data extracted therefrom cannot become admissible evidence. It is his submission that, in such circumstances, question of relying upon the evidence in the form of WhatsApp call or CDR etc. does not arise. According to him, in that event the sole evidence against the applicant is statement under Section 67, which is inadmissible during trial. He claims that this is a case of illegal detention of applicant as he was not produced before the Magistrate at Surat. To support this submission, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in case PAGE 3 OF 19 ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2026 20:42:04 ::: BA-5075-2024 (B).odt of Vachhalabai W/o Bharat Shinde vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors, Criminal Writ Petition No. 1778/2018. It is also argued that for non compliance of Sections 50 and 52A even in respect of the co-accused, applicant is entitled to bail. Finally, he argued that grounds of arrest are not provided to the applicant and his relatives and hence, it amounts to violation of fundamental rights of applicant. He by relying upon specimen notices argues that ordinarily grounds of arrest are informed in that format and in the instant case, it is not so informed. He relied upon following case case law to support his submissions:
(a) Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and Anr, 2025 INSC 162,
(b) Ashish Kakkar vs. UT of Chandigarh, Criminal Appeal No. 1518/2025
(c) Parbir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT OF DELHI), 2024 INSC 414
(d) Mahesh Pandurang Naik vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr, Writ Petition (St) No. 13835/2024.
(e) Directorate of Enforcement vs. Subhash Sharma, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 240
(f) Mihir Rajesh Shah vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr, 2025 INSC 1288
(g) Ahmed Mansoor and Ors vs. The State, Criminal Appeal No. 4505/2025
5. Learned APP opposed the bail on various grounds and firstly, pointing out to the Court that this is a case wherein a huge quantity of MD i.e. over 122 kg has been seized. It is his submission that the offence is not restricted to the State of Maharashtra but is spread over to other States so also internationally. It is his argument that in connection with the crime in question, 3 accused persons are deported from UAE. It is his submission that having regard to the involvement of number of accused in the crime and the PAGE 4 OF 19 ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2026 20:42:04 ::: BA-5075-2024 (B).odt huge quantity of narcotic drug involved herein, this is apparent an case of a drug syndicate and hence, not the case for grant of bail. On merit and in reply to the case sought to be made by the applicant it is submitted that admittedly, the applicant after he was taken in custody was duly produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours and therefore, there is compliance of mandatory provisions of law including Cr.P.C. and the Constitution of India. It is his submission that there is apart from the statements of the co-accused evidence in the form of the electronic record which could be proved before the trial Court showing the involvement of the applicant in the crime. It is his submission that the possession of the narcotic substance is not sine qua non for application of the provisions of the Act. It is his submission that prima facie there is more than sufficient evidence on record to show involvement of the applicant in this crime and as such owing to the embargo created by Section 37 of the Act, this is not fit case for grant of bail. To support his arguments, he relied upon following judgments:
(a) Ram Kishor Arora vs. Directorate of Enforcement, (2024) 7 SCC 599
(b) State of karnataka vs. Sri Darshan Etc, 2025 INSC 979
6. At the outset, this Court would like to deal with the submissions of the counsel for the Applicant that the Applicant came to be arrested in Surat, however, he was not produced before the nearest Magistrate, which is contrary to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in case of PAGE 5 OF 19 ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2026 20:42:04 ::: BA-5075-2024 (B).odt Vachhalabai W/o Bharat Shinde Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others , Criminal Writ Petition No. 1778 of 2018. In order to support this submission, he has placed reliance on the observations made therein in paragraph 26. It is not in dispute that the Applicant along with one of the co-accused was brought from Surat. They were taken to nearest police station and entry taken therein of custody of Applicant and co-accused being taken from Surat for production before Magistrate and after being brought to Mumbai, they were produced before the Magistrate of the appropriate jurisdiction within a period of 24 hours. As such, it cannot be said that there is any violation of the constitutional mandate or that the fundamental right of the Applicant to be produced before Magistrate has been breached in any manner.
7. In so far as non production of the Applicant before JMFC at Surat is concerned, it would be necessary to take note of the relevant provisions of the NDPS Act. A perusal of the said Act shows special procedure being provided therein in respect of warrant, arrest, searches and seizure as contemplated by Section 51 of the Act. This provision shows that the provisions of CRPC shall apply in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act. Section 52 requires a special reference at this stage, which reads thus:
Section 52 - Disposal of persons arrested and articles seized PAGE 6 OF 19 ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2026 20:42:04 ::: BA-5075-2024 (B).odt (1) Any officer arresting a person under section 41, section 42 section 43 or section 44 shall, as soon as may be, inform him of the grounds for such arrest.
(2) Every person arrested and article seized under warrant issued under sub-section (1) of section 41 shall be forwarded without unnecessary delay to the Magistrate by whom the warrant was issued.
(3) Every person arrested and article seized under sub- section (2) of section 41, section 42, section 43 or section 44 shall be forwarded without unnecessary delay to--
(a) the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station, or
(b) the officer empowered under section 53.
(4) The authority or officer to whom any person or article is forwarded under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) shall, with all convenient dispatch, take such measures as may be necessary for the disposal according to law of such person or article.
8. Above provision clearly indicates that in case of a person being arrested under the warrant issued under sub-section (1) of Section 41, such arrestee shall be forwarded without unnecessary delay to the Magistrate by whom the warrant was issued. It is thus clear that in this eventuality, the person arrested cannot be produced before any other Magistrate except before the Magistrate who has issued warrant of arrest. In case of arrest of a person without warrant i.e. sub-section (2) of Section 41, Section 42, Section 43 or Section 44, such arrestee shall be forwarded without unnecessary delay to the Officer In-charge of the nearest police station or PAGE 7 OF 19 ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2026 20:42:04 ::: BA-5075-2024 (B).odt the Officer empowered under Section 53. Sub-section 4 further clarifies that it is the Officer in-charge of the nearest police station or officer empowered under Section 53 shall take such measures as may be necessary for the disposal of such person in accordance with law. It is thus clear that the person arrested other than warrant cannot be produced before the Magistrate by arresting officer directly but he has to be produced before the Officer in-charge of nearest police station or officer empowered under Section 53.
9. Prima facie perusal of record indicates that after accosting applicant, he was produced before in-charge of nearest police station and station diary entry no. 34 at 17.02.2024, supports the said fact. Such production is done immediately and as soon this is not the case of any unnecessary delay in his production before in-charge police station, in compliance of Section 52(3)(a) of the Act.
10. Next question that would fall for consideration is as to whether there is jurisdiction for taking the Applicant to Mumbai instead of his production before nearest Magistrate as sought to be canvassed on behalf Applicant relying upon judgment of Division Bench of this Court. One more aspect needs attention herein is that after production before the officer in- charge of nearest police station is Surat, applicant was brought to Mumbai without unnecessary delay. As per sub-section 3 of Section 52, person PAGE 8 OF 19 ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2026 20:42:05 ::: BA-5075-2024 (B).odt arrested is required to be produced before the officer in-charge of nearest police station without unnecessary delay. This condition has been duly complied. Since the applicant was taken in custody in connection with crime registered in Mumbai, it was obligatory for officer taking his custody to bring him to Mumbai for the production of applicant before the Magistrate of the proper jurisdiction. This observation is inevitable in view of absence of specific provision for his production before nearest Magistrate.
11. In case of Vachhalabai (supra) the offences charged therein were under the Indian Penal Code and the provisions of CrPC had application thereto. Neither the NDPS Act nor special procedure provided therein had application thereto. Apart from the fact that such production was necessary, most importantly, unlike any other Penal law wherein provision is made with regard to the production of the Applicant within 24 hours of his arrest, no specific provision in this regard is found under the NDPS Act. Therefore, what contemplates by said provision is that after the person is produced before the Officer in-charge of the nearest police station or officer empowered under section 53, such officer would have to produce him before the Magistrate. In respectful view of this Court, in the facts of the case so also having regard to the special provisions of the NDPS Act in respect of arrest, said judgment has no application to the present case.
12. It is sought to be argued on behalf of the prosecution that the PAGE 9 OF 19 ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2026 20:42:05 ::: BA-5075-2024 (B).odt Applicant was not arrested from Surat, however, he was taken into custody for the purpose of investigation. In any case, since the Applicant was admittedly produced before the Magistrate of having jurisdiction within a period of 24 hours and that too after following procedure contemplated by Section 52, this Court finds that there is not breach of the fundamental or statutory rights of the Applicant.
13. The next contention of the Applicant is with regard to the non providing of grounds of arrest to him. In this regard, reference is made by the Counsel for the Applicant to the judgment in case of Pankaj Bansal (supra), Vihan Kumar (supra) and Parbir Purkayasth (supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering these judgments in case of Sri Darshan (supra) has made following observations:
20.1.7. In the present case, the arrest memos and remand records clearly reflect that the Respondents were aware of the reasons for their arrest. They were legally represented from the outset and applied for bail shortly after arrest, evidencing an immediate and informed understanding of the accusations. No material has been placed on record to establish that any prejudice was caused due to the alleged procedural lapse. In the absence of demonstrable prejudice, such as irregularity is, at best, a curable defect and cannot, by itself, warrant release on bail. As reiterated above, the High Court treated it as a determinative factor while overlooking the gravity of the charge Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and the existence of a prima facie case.
Its reliance on Pankaj Bansal and Prabir Purkayastha is misplaced, as those decisions turned on materially different facts and statutory contexts. The approach adopted here is PAGE 10 OF 19 ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2026 20:42:05 ::: BA-5075-2024 (B).odt inconsistent with the settled principle that procedural lapses in furnishing grounds of arrest, absent prejudice, do not ipso facto render custody illegal or entitle the Accused to bail.
14. It is held therein that in case from arrest memo and remand record if it is reflected that the accused was aware of the reasons of his arrest and the accused was represented from the time of remand so also applied for bail would indicate his informed understanding of accusations. Moreover, accused has to show prejudice being caused to him on account of such alleged procedural lapse. It is further held that in absence of demonstrable breaches such as irregularity is, at best, a curable defect and cannot, by itself, warrant release on bail. The principle of law laid down therein indicates that the procedural lapses in furnishing grounds of arrest in absence of prejudice being caused to the accused, do not ipso facto render custody illegal to entitle an accused of bail.
15. In the instant case, record indicates that memo of arrest was duly issued to the Applicant indicating the grounds/reasons for his arrest. It would be relevant to reproduce the same, which reads thus:
vVd eseks izfr] vknhy bErh;kt Ogksjk] o; 23 o"ksZ jk-Bh- yky njoktk] 2694] Mk;eaM flVh jsLVkWjaV toG] fjxy cqfVdP;k toG] xqtjkr jkT;-
fo"k; %& vkjksihyk vVd dj.;kP;k dkj.kkckcrph ekfgrh---
mijksDr fo"k; o lanHkkZl vuql:u lknj dj.;kr ;srs dh] fQ;knhZ ukes lqHkk"k lq;Zdkar eksjs] o; 51 o"ksZ] ¼iks-g-dz- 960183] use.kwd & d{k&7] PAGE 11 OF 19 ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2026 20:42:05 ::: BA-5075-2024 (B).odt xq-iz-'kk-] xq-v-fo-] eqacbZ½ ;kauh ljdkjrQsZ rdzkj fnY;ko:u xq-iz-'kk-] fo- LFkk-[k-dz- 12@2024 dye 8¼d½] 22 ¼d½] 29 vaeyh inkFkZ ojks/kh dk;nk ¼dqykZ iksyhl Bk.ks] fo-LFkk-[k-dz-67@2024½ vl xqUgk uksna dj.;kr vkyk vlqu ueqn xqUg;kpk rikl d{k&07] xqUgs 'kk[kk] ?kkVdksij eqacbZ ;k dk;kZy;kdMwu dj.;kr ;sr vkgs- ueqn xqUg;krhy vkjksih dz-02 lkthn eks- vkflQ 'ks[k mQZ MWCt] ;kpsdMqu ekxhy dkgh fnolkr ,tktvyh vUlkjh ;kps lkax.;ko:u vki.k 30 fdyks ,e-Mh- fodzh usyk vkgs- ifj.kkeh vki.kkl [kkyhy dkj.kkLro vVd dj.;kr vkysyh vkgs-
1- vaeyh inkFkkZoj canh vlrkuk vki.k vkjksih dz-02 lkthn 'ks[k ;kpsdMqu ,tktvyh vUlkjh ;kpslkBhypk 30 fdyks xzWe ,e-Mh- gk vaeyh inkFkZ fodzh dj.;kP;k mn~ns'kkus usyk vkgs- 2- ueqn vkjksihdMs dsysY;k izkFkfed pkSd'khe/;s R;kaps vkarjjk"Vzhus vkjksiha'kh laidZ d:u lnjpk vaeyh inkFkZ [kjsnh dsyk vkgs- R;keqGs ueqn vkjksihps vkarjjk"Vzh; dusD'ku ckcr l[ksy rikl dj.ksdjhrk- 3- vijk/kkps ;ksX; izdkjs vUos"k.k dj.;klkBh- 4- vVd vkjksihus veyh inkFkZ dksBqu o dks.kkdMwu vk.kyk ;kpk rikl dj.ksdjhrk-
5- ueqn vkjksihpk lnj xqUg;ke/;s vk.k[kh dkgh lgHkkx vkgs fdaok dls ;kckcr dlks'khus rikl dj.;klkBh-
6- lnj xqUg;kae/;s brj lg vkjksihapk lgHkkx fu"iUu dj.;kdfjrk o dk;nsf'kj dkjokbZ dj.;kdjhrk-
This memo of arrest bears acknowledgment of the Applicant.
Thus, at this stage, it cannot be said that the Applicant was not informed the grounds of arrest.
16. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant came to be arrested from Surat, State of Gujarat. In the arrest panchnama the languages known to the Applicant are shown to be Hindi, English and Gujarati. It is thus his submission that the Applicant was not aware of the grounds of arrest being not able to understand since the same have given in Marathi language.
17. First of all, signature on the said document indicates that the Applicant has received the information. There is no endorsement that he did PAGE 12 OF 19 ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2026 20:42:05 ::: BA-5075-2024 (B).odt not understand the grounds of arrest informed to him. No such grievance was made either before the Magistrate at the time of remand or before the Special Court while seeking bail. With regard to grounds of arrest to be informed, one more aspect deserves consideration that is the language used in Section 52 of the Act. As recorded herein above, it indicates that any officer arresting a person shall be informed him of grounds of such arrest, as soon as may be. This provision is not identical with the provision of CRPC, which reads thus:
Section 50 - Person arrested to be informed of grounds of arrest and of right to bail (1) Every police officer or other person arresting any person without warrant shall forthwith communicate to him full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other grounds for such arrest.
(2) Where a police officer arrests without warrant any person other than a person accused of a non-bailable offence, he shall inform the person arrested that he is entitled to be released on bail and that he may arrange for sureties on his behalf.
18. Though title of the above provision speaks about information of grounds of arrest, it casts an obligation upon police officer or any other person arresting any person to forthwith communicate (not inform) him full particulars of offence for which he is arrested or other grounds for such arrest, when arrest is being effected without warrant. No similar provision finds place under the NDPS Act and it requires information of grounds of PAGE 13 OF 19 ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2026 20:42:05 ::: BA-5075-2024 (B).odt arrest as soon as may be. Every word used by the Magistrate needs to be given its intended meaning. In spite of being fully conscious of the fact that there was a provision under CRPC requiring communication of full particulars of the offences or other grounds of such arrest that too forthwith on arrest, deviation is made therefrom and under the NDPS Act such communication is restricted to information only. Dictionary/ordinary meaning of the terms communication and information is different. Information cannot be equated with communication. Communication involves information by sender and understanding of the said information by the recipient. On the other hand, information does not contemplate such reciprocate understanding. In such circumstances, this Court finds no reason to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the Applicant with regard to Applicant having no knowledge of Marathi language. In any case, as stated above, during the course of remand or even at the time of filing of application for bail, no such grievance is made and as such, there is reason to believe that the Applicant was duly informed with the grounds of arrest and fully knowing the same, he defended himself during remand as well as filed application for bail. Needless to say that the Applicant was duly represented by the lawyer of his own choice since the time of first remand till decision of his application for bail before the Special Court. Thus, no prejudice can be said to have been caused by non information of the grounds of arrest to the Applicant in Marathi language. Similarly, this Court PAGE 14 OF 19 ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2026 20:42:05 ::: BA-5075-2024 (B).odt finds no substance in the contention of the learned Counsel for the Applicant that the grounds of arrest should have been informed as per format in specimen placed on record as what is more relevant is that the information of grounds of arrest and knowledge thereof to the accused.
19. In so far as information of the grounds of arrest to the relatives/friends of the Applicant is concerned, record shows that the relatives of the Applicant were informed while applicant was brought to Mumbai from Surat and also at time of his arrest. At the cost of repetition, it needs to be observed that Applicant/Accused has failed to show any prejudice caused to him and, therefore, in respectful view of this Court, judgment in case of Sri Darshan (supra) has square application to the present case. Hence, applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail on this count.
20. In so far as alleged non compliance of Section 42 is concerned, pertinently, this is not the case wherein any confidential information was received by the officer in order to require the same to be reduced in writing under Section 42(1) of the Act and further communication of the same to the superior Officer. Apart from the fact that there is material to indicate superior officer being in loop, in order to decide the said issue, it would be relevant to consider the facts of each case and that no straight jacket formula could be applied to all cases.
PAGE 15 OF 19 ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2026 20:42:05 ::: BA-5075-2024 (B).odt
21. Perusal of the record indicates that herein this case the offence came to the light after arrest of accused no.1. who is a lady found in possession of commercial quantity of MD. The said investigation laid to accused no.2 and consequently to the present case. During further investigation it was found that the contraband M.D. was manufactured in a village in District Sangli. On raid to the said premises, 122 kg MD was seized. As far as the present Applicant is concerned, apart from the statements of witnesses and also the statements of the co-accused, there is evidence/material in the form of electronic record i.e. whats app messages, voice clips of the Applicant and co-accused indicating his direct involvement in the crime. The said record more than sufficiently demonstrates the present crime to not be restricted to the individuals but an organized crime of a syndicate as rightly named by learned APP to be a Narcotic Drug Cartel. The manner in which the entire activities are conducted, prima facie leaves no room for doubt that this is a racket for manufacturing of narcotic drug, its trafficking and sale.
22. As far as applicant is concerned, prima facie there is more than sufficient record in the electronic form in order to accept the involvement of the Applicant in this crime. With regard to the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Applicant that the mobile phone seized of the Applicant was not kept in sealed condition is concerned, there is explanation in this regard PAGE 16 OF 19 ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2026 20:42:05 ::: BA-5075-2024 (B).odt from the prosecution that having regard to the nature of offence, investigating officer rightly thought it appropriate to keep mobile phone in working condition in order to obtain further information with regard to the involvement of other persons therein. In such case firstly no mala fides could be attributed to the investigating officer for doing so and secondly Court has to see whether the allegations of tampering is even sustainable at this stage owing to the material evidence found therein.
23. Now question arises as to whether at this stage it could be said that this is a case of tampering of the evidence, more particularly, the data from the phone of the Applicant. It needs to be appreciated that the data, which was found on the phone of the Applicant, is not any document such as a photograph which could be manipulated in record of phone in order to attribute fabrication thereof. This data, on the face of it, is with regard to the calls as well as messages exchanged with another phone. It is difficult to digest at this stage that the record which shows calls, chats, messages, locations of phone etc. has been fabricated. This Court, therefore, finds no reason to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the Applicant in this regard. Judgments cited on this point, therefore, have no application considering the difference in the facts involved in those cases.
24. While grant of bail for the offences punishable under the NDPS Act, the Courts are required to take into consideration the provision of PAGE 17 OF 19 ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2026 20:42:05 ::: BA-5075-2024 (B).odt Section 37 thereof so also the aims and object of the enactment of such special statute and also nature of offences. Perusal of the provisions of the said statute indicates that the deviation has been made by the legislature in respect of various provisions including provisions of arrest, search, seizure and even production of accused within 24 hours before the concerned Magistrate. Pertinently, even in other statute making strict provisions such as UAPA, PMLA, MCOCA, there is a specific provision made requiring production of accused within 24 hours of his arrest before the Magistrate. Such specific provision conspicuously is absent herein this Act. The Act, however, in order to provide for safeguards against false implication makes special provision taking a departure from the general provisions of CrPC applicable in respect of search, seizure etc. This safeguards are provided by the legislature itself keeping in mind the possibility of false implication and to rule out such possibility. It can thus safely be said that legislature as thought appropriate has made provisions to safeguard interests of accused against false implication and at the same time consciously omitted or modified the requirements under general law i.e. Criminal Procedure Code.
25. In the light of these facts, the provisions of Section 37 needs consideration which requires before granting bail to record a satisfaction to be that there is a reasonable ground for believing that Applicant is not guilty of the offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
PAGE 18 OF 19 ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2026 20:42:05 ::: BA-5075-2024 (B).odt Except on these two counts Court would assume jurisdiction to grant bail. The facts of the instant case do not persuade this Court to record its satisfaction of such reasonable ground believing that Applicant is not guilty of the offence and that he is not likely to commit offence while on bail.
26. As a result of above discussion, application deserves to be rejected and accordingly, stands rejected.
(R. M. JOSHI, J.) PAGE 19 OF 19 ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2026 20:42:05 :::