[Cites 25, Cited by 0]
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
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
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
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
(f) Mihir Rajesh Shah vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr, 2025 INSC 1288
(g) Ahmed Mansoor and Ors vs. The State, Criminal Appeal No.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
