Babu Razak Makhan Maniyar vs The State Of Maharashtra
2021 Latest Caselaw 16916 Bom

             Digitally signed by
 IRESH       IRESH SIDDHARAM
 SIDDHARAM   MASHAL
             Date: 2021.12.08
 MASHAL      10:15:18 +0530




                                                                                      40.3434.21 ba.doc

ISM
                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                           CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                          CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3434 OF 2021

                   BABU RAZAK MAKHAN MANIYAR                                         ....APPLICANT

                                   V/s.

                   THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA                                     .....RESPONDENT

                   Mr. Amit Munde for the applicant
                   Ms. Sharmila S. Kaushik APP for the State


                                               CORAM :     NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

                                               DATE:       DECEMBER 6, 2021.

                   P.C.:

                   1]              Applicant    is   seeking   regular   bail   in   C.R.No.     235/2021

registered with Navghar Police Station for offence punishable under

Sections 8(c), 20, 21(b) 29 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances, Act 1985 (Hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the sake

of brevity)

2] Applicant was apprehended on 06/04/2021 as Section 29

(conspiracy) of the Act is invoked against the applicant.

40.3434.21 ba.doc

3] Learned counsel for the applicant submits that apart from the

fact that nothing objectionable was recovered from the custody of the

applicant, the only incriminating piece of evidence available is,

confessional statement of co-accused. He would further claim that

C.D.R. details between accused Mukhtaar Ahmad and applicant upto

24/12/2020 whereas offence alleged to have taken place in the

month of March 2021. As such, according to him, enough material is

not placed by the prosecution on record to make out a case for

achieving his conviction.

4] Learned APP submits that confessional statement recorded

under Section 67 of the NDPS Act can be taken into account for the

purpose of investigation, even if it has lost its binding force in view of

Apex Court's Judgment in the matter of Tofan Singh Vs. State of

Tamil Nadu1. Further contention of learned APP is, more than 500

calls between the applicant and co-accused is worth considering in

support of case of conspiracy. As such it is claimed that prayer for

bail be rejected as there are two antecedents of theft. 1 [2021 (4) SCC 1]

40.3434.21 ba.doc

5] Considered submissions.

6] It is admitted position on record that applicant is booked in the

offence in question only for the reason of conspiracy i.e. by invoking

provisions under Section 29 of the Act. The fact remains that for

conspiracy, mobile call details are relied and last such call was made

in the month of December 2020 whereas offence claimed to have

been committed in March 2021. As such, it is difficult to infer that

immediately before commission of present crime, there was meeting

of minds between the applicant and co-accused to commit serious

offence.

7] Statement of co-accused recorded under Section 67 is not

binding in view of Judgment of Apex court in the matter of Toofan

Singh [cited supra].

8] In the aforesaid background, it is difficult to infer that there are

reasonable grounds to believe that applicant is guilty of the offence as

40.3434.21 ba.doc

alleged. That being so, case for bail is made out.

(i) Applicant is seeking regular bail in C.R.No. 235/2021 registered with Navghar Police Station for offence punishable under Sections 8(c), 20, 21(b) 29 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act 1985 upon furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one or two local sureties in the like amount.

(ii) Applicant shall neither influence witnesses in any manner nor tamper with evidence.

(iii) Applicant shall regularly attend the Trial. Upon two consecutive failure to attend the trial, the Trial Court is at liberty to initiate proceedings for cancellation of bail.

9] Application stands disposed of.

[NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]