Bombay High Court
Ambadas Sitaram Shinde vs The State Of Maharashtra on 12 June, 2024
2024:BHC-AUG:10584
959-ba-787-2024.odt
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 787 OF 2024
Ambadas Sitaram Shinde
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Narwade Narayan B.
APP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.R. Wakale
...
CORAM : S.G. MEHARE, J.
DATED : JUNE 12, 2024
PER COURT:-
1. Leave granted to correct the name of father of the
applicant.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP
for the State.
3. In the raid of the house of the applicant, the police found
4 kilo 626 grams Ganja and 36 grams of Heroine.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the
quantity as per the Government Gazette allegedly seized from the
applicant is intermediate quantity. Therefore, Section 37 of NDPS Act
would not apply. He would submit that there are no antecedents to
the discredit of the applicant. The investigation has been completed
and nothing is to be recovered from the applicant. Since he was to
perform the marriage of his daughter, the huge amount of Rs.4 lac
959-ba-787-2024.odt
(2)
was lying in his pocket. Unfortunately, the marriage has been
postponed further. There is a discrepancy in the description of the
house where from the alleged drugs have been seized. The applicant
has a clean past. Hence, he may be granted bail.
5. Learned APP has strongly opposed the application. He
would submit that he would agree that the quantity of the drugs
recovered was intermediate. However, there is a great possibility of
involving the applicant again in the similar crime. Hence, he may not
be granted bail.
6. Considering the quantity allegedly recovered from the
house of the applicant is intermediate, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Sami Ullaha Vs. Superintendent, Narcotic Central Bureau,
(2009) AIR (SC) 1357, held that as per small quantity in terms of the
notification issued under Sections 2(viia) and 2(xxiiia), quantity
alleged to have been recovered from the co-accused person could be
said to be intermediate quantity and, thus, the rigours of the
provisions of Section 37 of the Act relating to grant of bail may not be
justified.
7. The conviction for the offence for which the applicant has
been put to trial is upto 10 years. The Act is a special law controlling
the drug addiction amongst the youngsters and protecting the
national asset. However, the law has been crystallized by many
judgments. Strict rules are to be followed. Where the quantity is
959-ba-787-2024.odt
(3)
commercial, Section 37 of the said Act would apply otherwise not.
The property allegedly stored for the business has been recovered.
There are no antecedents to the discredit of the applicant.
8. Considering the entire aspect of the case and particularly
the quantity of drugs recovered from the applicant, it would be
inappropriate to keep the applicant behind bar. Hence, the following
order :
ORDER
(i) Bail Application is allowed.
(ii) Applicant, Ambadas Sitaram Shinde, be released on bail on furnishing P.B. and S.B. of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount in Crime No.325 of 2024 registered with Sangamner City Police Station, District Ahmednagar for the offence punishable under Sections 8-C, 20(B)(ii) and 21 of the NDPS Act, on the conditions that;
(a) The applicant shall attend the trial on each and every date.
(b) The applicant shall not involve in similar profession/business.
(c) The applicant shall not protract the trial.
959-ba-787-2024.odt (4)
(d) If the applicant would be arrested in similar crime, the prosecution would be at liberty to file application for cancellation of his bail order.
(S.G. MEHARE, J.) Mujaheed//