Bombay High Court
Sanjat Ratan Rajput vs Union Of India And Anr on 10 January, 2024
Author: Prithviraj K. Chavan
Bench: Prithviraj K. Chavan
2024:BHC-AS:1030 3641-2022-BA=.doc
Uday S. Jagtap
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3641 OF 2022
Sanjat Ratan Rajput .. Applicant
Vs.
Union of India & Anr. .. Respondents
.....
Mr. Taraq Sayed i/b Advait Tamhankar for the applicant
Mr. M.G. Patil, APP for the respondent - State
Mr. Amit Munde, Spl. P.P. for the respondent no.1 - Customs
.....
CORAM : PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.
RESERVED ON : 9th JANUARY, 2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 10th JANUARY, 2024
P.C.
1. By this application, the applicant prays for his release on bail
under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure since he has
been arrested and prosecuted for the offences punishable under
Section 8(c), r/w Section 20b(ii)(C) and Section 29 of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "NDPS
Act").
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, a few facts germane for disposal
1 of 8
::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2024 07:26:00 :::
3641-2022-BA=.doc
of this application can be summarized as under.
3. Pursuant to an information by the respondent, a car bearing
Registration No. MH-05-AX-6577 was intercepted on Nashik
Phata, Pune around 10.00 hours to 12.00 hours on 26.07.2018.
During search, it was found that the car was loaded with
approximately 200 kgs of Ganja, which was a contraband. After
weighing, it was noticed that the quantity was around 180.320 kgs.
Necessary sampling, sealing and labeling was carried out by the
Investigating Agency as also the personal search of the applicant.
Statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act came to be recorded.
There are two accused. After investigation, a charge-sheet is filed
in the Special Court.
4. First application for bail preferred by the applicant came to be
rejected by the Special Court vide order dated 02.01.2020.
5. At the outset, learned Counsel for the applicant invited my
attention to the fact that the applicant has been incarcerated for
more than 5 years, who is the only earning member of his family
and there is no likelihood of concluding the trial in near future. He
may be released on bail by imposing the conditions to which he
2 of 8
::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2024 07:26:00 :::
3641-2022-BA=.doc
would abide by. Learned Counsel has also advanced few
submissions on the merits of the case by stating that definition of
contraband as given in the panchanama, does not match to that of
the definition of Ganja, as envisaged under the NDPS Act.
To substantiate his contention, he placed reliance on the order of
this Court bench at Aurangabad, dated 30.11.2021 (Bail
Application No.1329 of 2021). It is also submitted that in view of
the various pronouncements of this Court on identical facts, the
applicants have been enlarged on bail.
6. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor while strongly
objecting the release of the applicant on bail, contended that
looking to the enormity of the offences, in the sense, it being a
commercial quantity of Ganja seized from the possession of the
applicant and as the trial has already commenced, the applicant may
not be released on bail. It is further contended that this is
essentially an offence against the Society having impact on the
health of the citizens and, therefore, the applicant may not be
released.
7. The learned Special Public Prosecutor expressed his
3 of 8
::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2024 07:26:00 :::
3641-2022-BA=.doc
apprehension of abscondence of the applicant in case of his release
as well as influencing and coercing the prosecution witnesses,
especially the panchas. He also expressed his apprehension of
repeating similar offence by the applicant in case of his release.
8. Admittedly, the applicant has been incarcerated for nearly 5
years. Though the trial has already commenced, the learned Special
Public Prosecutor submits that a direction be issued to expedite the
trial, which would be concluded within a period of one year.
9. Section 20b(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act provides minimum
imprisonment of 10 years in case of commercial quantity of
cannabis, which may extend to 20 years. Even if the minimum
sentence of 10 years is taken into consideration, the applicant has
already undergone half of the sentence. At the same time, it cannot
be lost sight of the fact that that prolonged incarceration, generally
militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and in such an
eventuality, the conditional liberty must override the statutory
embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act. This
has been precisely observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
4 of 8
::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2024 07:26:00 :::
3641-2022-BA=.doc
case of Rabi Prakash Vs. The State of Odisha (Special Leave to
Appeal (Cri.) No(s).4169 of 2023) .
10. The learned Counsel for the applicant has pressed into service
a latest order of the Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Jain Vs.
NCB & Anr. (Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No. 8900 of 2022).
It was a case under Section 8 r/w Sections 20(b)(ii)B, 27, 27A and
29 of the NDPS Act registered with Narcotics Control Bureau,
Mumbai Zonal Unit, Mumbai. It is observed that though it is a case
of commercial quantity and allegations levelled against the
petitioner are serious in nature, but having regard to the fact that he
is in custody for 2 years and conclusion of the trial will take time,
the Supreme Court released the petitioner on bail. The instant case
is on much higher footing than what the Supreme Court has
observed in the case of Jitendra Jain (supra).
11. This Court has also taken a similar view while granting bail to
the applicant in case of Sajjid Yusuf Electricwalla Vs. The State of
Maharashtra (Bail Application No.3076 of 2021) dated
31.03.2022.
12. The Special Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, placed
5 of 8
::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2024 07:26:00 :::
3641-2022-BA=.doc
reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
Narcotics Control Bureau Vs. Mohit Agarwal, 2022 SCC Online
SC 891 wherein it has been observed that parameters of bail
available under Section 37 of the Act were not satisfied. The
accused in the said case was in the custody for less than 2 years. In
such circumstances, it was observed that the length of period of his
custody and the fact that charge-sheet has been filed and the trial
has commenced are by themselves not considerations that can be
treated as persuasive grounds for granting relief to the respondent
under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The ratio laid down in case of
Mohit Agarwal (supra) can be distinguished in view of the order of
the Supreme Court in case of Jitendra Jain (supra) as well as in case
of Rabi Prakash (supra).
13. Dehors of the merits of the case and in view of various
pronouncements referred to hereinabove, I am persuaded to release
the applicant on bail albeit imposing certain conditions, which
would take care of the apprehension expressed by the learned
Special Public Prosecutor.
14. Consequently, the following order is expedient :-
6 of 8
::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2024 07:26:00 :::
3641-2022-BA=.doc
ORDER
(i) The application is allowed.
(ii) The applicant - Sanjay Ratan Rajput be released
on executing a PR bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-
with two local sureties in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the Special Judge of NDPS Court in
Special Case No.8 of 2019.
(iii) The applicant shall appear before the
respondent - Investigating Officer on every Monday
between 9.00 a.m. to 11.00 a.m. till the conclusion of
the trial.
(iv) The applicant shall surrender his passport with
the Investigating Officer. In case, he has no passport,
an affidavit be sworn before the Special Court within
two weeks from today.
(v) The applicant shall not leave the jurisdiction of
the Special Court until conclusion of the trial.
(vi) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly
make any inducement, threat or promise to any
person acquainted with the facts of case so as to
7 of 8
3641-2022-BA=.doc
dissuade him from disclosing the facts to Court or any
Police Officer. The applicant should not tamper with
evidence.
(vii) The applicant shall furnish his cell number as
well as residential address to the Investigating Officer
and shall also inform if there is any change in the Cell
number or the residential address.
(viii) Needless to say that breach of any of the
condition would entitle the prosecution to pray for
cancellation of the bail.
15. The application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
(PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.)
8 of 8
