HAFIZUR ABDUL MAULYA @SOHELversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

      R/CR.MA/9758/2026                                         ORDER DATED: 06/08/2026




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 9758
                          of 2026

==========================================================
                          HAFIZUR ABDUL MAULYA @SOHEL
                                      Versus
                                STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NASIR SAIYED(6145) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR RONAK RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER

                                   Date : 06/08/2026

                                    ORAL ORDER


1.               This application emanates from serious allegations

relating to contraband substance MD (mephedrone) which is a

prohibited synthetic stimulant drug. Offences of this character

are not mere infractions; they transcend ordinary criminality

and strike at the very foundation of public health. Given the

inherent gravity of the alleged offence and the stringent

mandate          of       the   NDPS         Act,       any     plea     seeking          the

extraordinary indulgence of anticipatory bail must necessarily

be subjected to the highest degree of judicial scrutiny.



2.               By way of the present application under Section

482     of    Bharatiya         Nagarik        Suraksha       Sanhita,       2023     (‘the

BNSS’ for short), the applicant-accused have prayed to release

him      on    anticipatory       bail    in    the     event    of    his    arrest       in



                                         Page 1 of 13
      R/CR.MA/9758/2026                                      ORDER DATED: 06/08/2026




connection        with     the   FIR     being        C.R.No.11210003240961            of

2024 registered with Adajan Police Station, Surat City for the

offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 21(c) and 29 of the

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (`the NDPS

Act’ for short).



3.               RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice for

the respondent-State.



4.1              Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted

that      the     applicant      is    an    innocent      person      and      falsely

implicated in this offence; the present applicant has been

implicated in the present offence on the basis of the co-

accused statement; that on the basis of the only allegation

against the present applicant that there were some monetary
business transactions with the co-accused and/or some call

records       between       them,      the     applicant     is     implicated         as

purchaser of the said contraband; that he will abide by all

the conditions and will not flee away from the investigation.

It is, therefore, prayed to allow this application.



5.               Per contra, learned APP has submitted that the
applicant        has      committed     a    very      serious    offence     and      is

involved in a serious offence of supplying commercial quantity

of MD drugs; that the                 muddammal is worth Rs.35 lacs and


                                       Page 2 of 13
      R/CR.MA/9758/2026                                  ORDER DATED: 06/08/2026




odd; there are interse communication between the accused

and the applicant; that the applicant has not appeared and

cooperated with the investigation after he was granted transit

bail; there are transactions by UPI showing the money paid

and received by the applicant with the accused no.1. He also

submitted that as the applicant is not traceable; the warrant

under Section 72 of the Bharatiya Nyay Suraksha Sanhita is

issued against him. Therefore, as the present applicant is
directly involved in the said offence, and the investigation is

going on, the custodial interrogation is necessary to unearth

the truth. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss this application.



6.1              Having    heard   the      learned   advocates           for      the

respective       parties   and   having     considered     the     role    of      the

present applicant, it transpires from the affidavit of the
Investigating Officer that in the present case, the applicant

herein had continuously purchased the contraband article-

M.D.drugs from the accused Mohd.Asif Abdulrasid Shaikh, for

which, the bank transactions are done often in State Bank of

India and Kotak Mahindra Bank; that the applicant herein

did not appear and cooperate with the investigation after he

was granted transit bail and therefore warrant under Section

72 of the BNSS was issued against him; that the accused

Yogesh Indle who is a resident of Mumbai, from whom the

accused no.1-Asif was purchasing drugs is still wanted and


                                   Page 3 of 13
      R/CR.MA/9758/2026                                          ORDER DATED: 06/08/2026




not arrested; the accused no.1-Asif who is the seller of the

said drug, has categorically stated in his statement that he

used to supply the said contraband article to customers and

he has specifically stated the name of the applicant as one of

those customers to whom he was continuously selling the

said contraband article, for which they were in constant

touch with each other and there were also bank transactions.


6.2              The       investigation      material          reveals       that         the

applicant’s name has not come up in isolation. Rather, it has

emerged        during       the   course    of    inquiry        into    an    organized

network         allegedly      involved      in       the     illicit   trafficking         of

contraband substances. The allegations against the applicant

are neither casual nor standalone. Prima facie, the material

collected, including the statement of a co-accused, points to
the     applicant’s        role   in   a    broader          conspiracy       concerning

procurement, supply chain, distribution, and related financial

transactions. In offences of such seriousness, where public

interest and societal welfare take precedence over individual

liberty,       the        extraordinary      and        discretionary          relief       of

anticipatory bail cannot be allowed to be used as a barrier to

a fair, thorough, and effective investigation.



6.3              The       argument    that       the       applicant’s     implication

rests solely on the statement of a co-accused is a matter



                                       Page 4 of 13
      R/CR.MA/9758/2026                                               ORDER DATED: 06/08/2026




that cannot be determined at this preliminary stage. The

statement of the co-accused forms part of the evidentiary

material gathered during investigation. At this juncture, it

would not be proper to assess or weigh the probative value

of such statement. Further, the investigating agency is well

within its domain to examine the role attributed to the

applicant.       Custodial        interrogation           is    deemed         necessary        to

ascertain         and       clarify      the        extent       of      the      applicant’s
involvement in the alleged offence. Since the investigation is

still    underway,          it    would        be    premature            to    accept      the

applicant’s submissions and to interfere with the ongoing

process of investigation.



6.4              It is a settled position of law that at the time of

investigation, statement of co-accused provides clues to the
investigating agency as to how to investigate the case and

thereafter the Investigating Officer has to collect evidence

against the person who has been named as accused. In view

of the said fact, there is no bar on considering the statement

of the co-accused for investigation purpose, irrespective of the

fact that the statement of the co-accused to police is not

admissible        in      evidence    before         the       Court,     but     police        can

certainly        consider         that       statement           as       a     clue       while

interrogating             him    further       or    other        person        arrested         or

interrogated during the course of investigation, as the said



                                           Page 5 of 13
     R/CR.MA/9758/2026                                                  ORDER DATED: 06/08/2026




confession of co-accused gives a clue to the Investigating

Authorities as to how to investigate the matter and against

whom to investigate the matter. Therefore, in view of the

aforesaid fact, the statement of the co-accused provides a clue

for investigation and to unearth the truth, the statement of

co-accused is required.



7.              In the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh

Ranjan Alias Pappu Yadav, reported in (2004) 7 SCC 528 ,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:


                         "The next argument of the learned counsel
                         for the respondent is that prima facie the
                         prosecution       has      failed         to     produce      any
                         material to implicate the respondent in the
                         crime     of    conspiracy.          In    this      regard     he
                         submitted that most of the witnesses have
                         already        turned    hostile.          The       only   other
                         evidence       available        to   the       prosecution      to
                         connect the respondent with the crime is
                         an   alleged      confession          of       the    co-accused
                         which according to the learned counsel was
                         inadmissible        in     evidence.           Therefore,       he
                         contends that the High Court was justified
                         in granting bail since the prosecution has
                         failed to establish even a prima facie case



                                          Page 6 of 13
      R/CR.MA/9758/2026                                         ORDER DATED: 06/08/2026




                          against   the     respondent.        From    the   High
                          Court order we do not find this as a
                          ground for granting bail. Be that as it
                          may, we think that this argument is too
                          premature        for      us    to     accept.       The
                          admissibility     or    otherwise     of    confessional
                          statement and the effect of the evidence
                          already adduced by the prosecution and the
                          merit of the evidence that may be adduced
                          hereinafter including that of the witnesses
                          sought to be recalled are all matters to be
                          considered at the stage of the trial.”



7.1              In the case of Mohammed Fasrin v. State Rep. By

the Intelligence Officer, rendered in Criminal Appeal No.296
of 2014, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:


                          “…….The confessions of a co-accused gives
                          a clue to the investigating authorities as to
                          how to investigate the matter and against
                          whom to investigate the matter. Thereafter,
                          it is for the investigating officers to collect
                          evidence against the said person who has
                          been named by the co-accused.....”



7.2              It is evident from the aforesaid decisions that a



                                          Page 7 of 13
      R/CR.MA/9758/2026                                        ORDER DATED: 06/08/2026




statement of a co-accused can be considered and treated as a

clue or a piece of information for the purposes of initiating

and conducting an inquiry or investigation, or for directing

the investigation or inquiry in a particular direction, with the

objective        of       ascertaining       whether         there        exists         any

independent, satisfactory, and reliable material which may

support,       justify,     or   provide      a    reason    for        continuing       the

inquiry or investigation, or for initiating further investigation.



8.               The      investigation      is    at   a    nascent        stage        and

custodial       interrogation      of     the      applicant       is    necessary        to

unearth the source, the extent of the network, and the role

of other conspirators.



9.               Further, it has also been brought to the notice of

this Court that the applicant has not appeared and has not

cooperated with the investigation after he was granted transit
bail and therefore warrant under Section 72 of the BNSS

was issued against him on 02.05.2025 which is prior to filing

of this application i.e. on 22.04.2026.



10.              In the case of Lavesh V/s State (NCT of Delhi)

reported in (2012)8 SCC 730,                       wherein     the Hon’ble Apex

Court has held in paragraph 12 as under:




                                        Page 8 of 13
      R/CR.MA/9758/2026                                            ORDER DATED: 06/08/2026




         “12. From these materials and information, it is clear that
         the present appellant was not available for interrogation and
         investigation and declared as “absconder”. Normally, when
         the accused is “absconding” and declared as a “proclaimed
         offender”, there is no question of granting anticipatory bail.
         We reiterate that when a person against whom a warrant
         had been issued and is absconding or concealing himself in
         order to avoid execution of warrant and declared as a
         proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the Code he is
         not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail.”



11.              In the decision of State of Madhya Pradesh V/s

Pradeep Sharma reported in (2014)2 SCC 171, the Apex
Court       has      held       that    if     anyone         is      declared        as     an

absconder/proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 Cr.P.C.,

he     is    not     entitled     to    relief    of        anticipatory      bail.        After

extracting Section 438, Cr.P.C., it was further held therein

thus:-



         “The      above    provision        makes     it     clear    that     the    power
         exercisable under Section 438 of the Code is somewhat
         extraordinary in character and it is to be exercised only in
         exceptional cases where it appears that the person may be
         falsely implicated or where there was reasonable grounds for
         holding that a person accused of an offence is not likely to
         otherwise misuse his liberty.”



                                        Page 9 of 13
      R/CR.MA/9758/2026                                                ORDER DATED: 06/08/2026




12.              In the case of Srikant Upadhyay & Ors. V/s State

of Bihar & Anr., reported in 2024 INSC 202, it is held in
paragraph 17 as under:



        “17. Section 70(2), Cr.P.C. mandates that every warrant
        issued under Section 70(1), Cr.P.C. shall remain in force
        until it is cancelled by the Court which issued it, or until it
        is executed. In this case, as noticed hereinbefore, the bailable
        warrants          and    thereafter       the       non-bailable     warrants,       were
        issued against the appellants. They were neither cancelled by
        the Trial Court nor they were executed. It is not their case
        that they have successfully challenged them. Xxxxx”


        Further, it is held in paragraph 24 as under:

        “24.     xxxxx,     At      any      rate,      when     warrant        of   arrest       or
        proclamation is issued, the applicant is not entitled to invoke
        the extraordinary power. Certainly, it will not deprive the
        power of the Court to grant pre-arrest bail in extreme,
        exceptional        cases     in     the      interest     of    justice.     But    then,
        person(s), continuously, defying orders and keep absconding is
        not entitled to such grant.”



13.              Further,         there      is      nothing      on      the      record        put

forward        by    the        applicant      to    show       that      there      were        any

commercial business transactions between the applicant and

the accused no.1, as has been canvassed by the learned



                                            Page 10 of 13
      R/CR.MA/9758/2026                                          ORDER DATED: 06/08/2026




advocate for the applicant, for which, he was transferring and

receiving money in the bank accounts and therefore, the

inference that the said amount was paid and received for the

purchase of the said contraband article-M.D.drugs, as per the

statement of the accused no.1, cannot be ruled out at this

preliminary stage of investigation. Therefore, the custodial

interrogation of the applicant is necessary to unearth the

truth.



14.              Having regard to the gravity of the offence, the

huge       muddammal             involved,       and      the    statutory       embargo

contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, this Court is of

the considered view that it is not a fit case to exercise the

extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 of

the BNSS. In offences of such seriousness, where societal

interest       and        public      health      outweigh        individual       liberty,

anticipatory         bail       cannot     be     allowed       to   operate       as      an
impediment           to     a      fair   and       effective     investigation.        The

investigation is at a crucial stage.



15.              In offences under the NDPS Act, the following

factors are typically relevant:



    Investigation often involves an organized supply chain;

    The          statement          of    a    accused         commonly       leads       to



                                          Page 11 of 13
      R/CR.MA/9758/2026                                          ORDER DATED: 06/08/2026




        identification of suppliers, transporters, financiers, and

        receivers;

   Custodial              interrogation       is    often   necessary         to    verify

        disclosures and unearth further incriminating material;

   At         the        anticipatory    bail      stage,   the     Court      evaluates

        prima facie involvement and investigative needs, not the
        ultimate probative value of a co-accused’s statement at

        trial.

                   In the totality of the circumstances, including the

gravity       of     the     offence     and        the   need     for    an     effective

investigation, the application for anticipatory bail deserves to

be rejected.



16.                In the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs

State Of Maharashtra, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694 , the
Hon’ble Court held that life and personal liberty are the

most prized possessions of an individual but not at the cost

of larger interest of society and public. This is not a case,

wherein accused is falsely enraged in the offence with a view

to tarnish his image. Considering the fact that the custodial

interrogation is required. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case

of Jai Prakash Singh Vs State of Bihar & Anr. reported in

2012 4 SCC 379, has been pleased to hold as under :



                   “Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a



                                         Page 12 of 13
         R/CR.MA/9758/2026                                                                  ORDER DATED: 06/08/2026




                        serious offences are required to be satisfied and
                        further while granting such relief, the court must
                        record the reasons therefore. Anticipatory bail can
                        be      granted           only        in      exceptional              circumstances
                        where the Court is prima facie of the view that
                        the applicant has falsely been enroped in the
                        crime and would not misuse his liberty.”


 17.                    In view of the gravity of allegations, material on

 record, and need for effective investigation, this Court finds

 no ground to exercise discretion under Section 482 of the

 BNSS as custodial interrogation of the applicant is imperative

 to unearth the truth. Hence, this is a not a fit case to

 exercise the jurisdiction in favour of the applicant.

 18.                    For the foregoing reasons and considering the law

 laid down in the above cited decisions of this Court as well

 as of the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is of view that it

 is not a fit case to exercise the discretion under Section 482

 of BNSS in favour of the applicant. Accordingly, present

 application does not deserve any consideration and is hereby

 rejected. Rule is discharged.
 19.                    It is made clear that the observations made in

 the present order are tentative in nature and should not

 affect the trial and/or other proceedings.

                                                                                        (SANJEEV J.THAKER,J)
 SRILATHA


Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: SRILATHA VENKATARAO UPADHYAYULA(HC00185), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 06/08/2026 17:42:58




                                                          Page 13 of 13