Vasimraja Mahammad Hanif Shaikh vs State Of Gujarat

Nikhil S. Kariel, J

Heard learned Advocate Mr. Devansh Kakkad for learned Advocate Mr. A.M. Saiyed on behalf of the applicants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Niraj Sharma for the respondent-State.

Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

The present applicants who have been arraigned as accused have preferred these applications under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging the applicants on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11199061250714 of 2025 registered with Ankleshwar City ‘B’ Division Police Station, District: Bharuch for the offences punishable under Sections 8(C), 22(B), 25 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ( hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS Act’) after filing of the charge-sheet more particularly the application preferred by the applicantS having been rejected by the learned Trial Court.

Learned Advocate Mr. Kakkad on behalf of the applicants would submit that the applicants were apprehended with conscious possession of Narcotic substance – Methamphetamine having quantity of 7 grams and 94 milligrams. Learned Advocate would submit that the applicants had purchased the same material for their personal consumption and whereas it was never the intent of the applicants to have sold the material for any personal gain. Learned Advocate would submit that out of the applicants, the original accused no.3 does not have any antecedents against him whereas applicant-original accused no. 1 has an antecedent of being involved in two offences more particularly of an offence under the Motor Vehicle Act, the accused having been acquitted, and whereas the second being the offence under the Prohibition Act the same is pending consideration of the learned Trial Court. It is submitted that insofar as original accused no. 2 there is an antecedent of being involved in an offence under the Indian Penal Code i.e. more particularly punishable under Sections 323. 325 etc. Learned Advocate would submit that there is no antecedent of being involved in any offence of the like nature and it is submitted that this Court may consider the case of the present applicants for release on regular bail.

The present applicants have been vehemently objected to by learned APP. Learned APP would submit that the applicants were found in conscious possession of the narcotic substance. It is further submitted that the applicants had purchased the same from a co-accused and whereas it is submitted that while the applicants were intending to sell the same for personal gain, the applicants had been apprehended.

To a pointed query, it is submitted by learned APP that the applicants had purchased approximately 10 grams of the substance in question and whereas while they had been apprehended, the applicants appear to have consumed approximately 3 grams of the substance in question.

This Court has heard learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the FIR as well as passed by learned Session Court as well as affidavit filed by the investigating officer before the learned Trial Court.

This Court has taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40.

This Court has also considered the following aspects:

(i) The fact that prima facie it would appear that the substance was purchased for personal consumption, more particularly since it appears that after purchase before the applicants had been apprehended , they had already consumed part of the substance in question.

(ii) The fact that the applicants do not appear to be involved in any offence of the like nature, the applicants original accused no. 1 and 2 being involved in other offences but not of an offence of the like nature.

(iii) The fact of the charge-sheet having been filed.

Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicants are ordered to be released on bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11199061250714 of 2025 registered with Ankleshwar City ‘B’ Division Police Station, District: Bharuch for the offences punishable under Sections 8(C), 22(B), 25 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 on executing a bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousands only) each with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that they shall;

[a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;

[b] not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution;

[c] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week;

[d] not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Sessions Judge concerned;

[e] Mark their presence at the concerned Police Station once in a fortnight for a period of six months and once in a month for a period of six months thereafter between 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.

[f] furnish the present address of residence to the I.O. and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residential address without prior permission of the Sessions Court;

The Authorities will release the applicants only if they are not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be free to take appropriate action in the matter.

Bail bond to be executed before the lower court having jurisdiction to try the case. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions in accordance with law.

At the stage of trial, the trial court shall not be influenced by any observations of this Court which are of preliminary nature made at this stage, only for the purpose of considering the application of the applicants for being released on regular bail.

The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.