Bombay High Court
SULTAN AHMED ABDUL LATIF SHAIKHversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- R M JOSHI
Holding
The court dismissed the bail application, finding prima facie evidence of the appellant's involvement in the drug trafficking offence and concluding that his age does not merit bail.
Summary
The appellant, Sultan Ahmed Abdul Latif Shaikh, sought regular bail in a case involving the alleged trafficking of 16 kilograms of mephedrone under the NDNDPS Act. He argued that his arrest reasons were not communicated, that no narcotics were recovered from him, and that the large cash seized from his house was a legitimate security deposit for a scrap business transaction. The prosecution presented prima facie evidence, including the seizure of a commercial quantity of mephedrone from co‑accused, call detail records linking the appellant to the co‑accused, and the recovery of Rs 88,06,600 in cash allegedly linked to the drug transaction. The trial court had already rejected bail, noting that the appellant had been informed of the reasons for his arrest. The High Court, after examining the evidence, held that the appellant’s age could not outweigh the prima facie case against him and dismissed the bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant is entitled to regular bail despite the seizure of a commercial quantity of mephedrone and associated cash.
- Whether the appellant was informed of the reasons for his arrest as required by law.
- Whether the cash seized from the appellant's residence can be explained as a legitimate business transaction, thereby negating its evidentiary value.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 21(c), 22(c), 27(A), 28, 29, 35, 54, 8(c)
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- mephedrone
- commercial quantity
- call detail records
- cash seizure
- age factor
- prima facie evidence
Judgment
14-BA-3532-2025
Navnath Waghmare (P.A)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3532 OF 2025
Sultan Ahmed Abdul Latif Shaikh …Appellant
Versus
Union Of India And Anr …Respondents
Mr. Jitendra Gautam for the Applicant.
Ms.Sangeeta Yadhav a/w Ashutosh Mishra for the Respondent-
DRI
Mr. Hitendra J. Dedhia APP, for the Respondent-State.
CORAM: R. M. JOSHI, J.
DATED: 04th MARCH, 2026
PC:-
1. This application is for regular bail has been filed in
connection with CR No. DRI/MZU/C/INT-119/2024 registered
with Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Mumbai, Zonal Unit
Mumbai under Section 21(c), 22(c) 27(A), 28,29 r/w Sections
8(c),35 and 54 of Narcotic Durg and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985 (for short ‘NDPS, Act).
2. At the outset learned counsel for the applicant is entitled for
bail for the reason that at the time of arrest, reasons of his arrest,
were not communicated to him.
Page 1 of 4
th
04 March, 2026
14-BA-3532-2025
3. The information received in respect of huge quantity of
Mephedrone, narcotic drug being carried by two persons traveling
in a bus from Hyderabad to Mumbai which was scheduled to Vashi
at 7:00 A.M., on 03.12.2024. The said information further
indicates that those two persons would deliver the contraband to
Mahesh, who came to Mumbai from Vadodara for taking delivery
of the same. He was intending to deliver the said contraband to
Sultan Ahmed Abdul Latif Shaik- (present applicant). The officer of
DRI intercepted two persons that is accused no. 1 and 2 near Vashi,
Flyover, bus stop. During the search of Bag packs carried out under
panchnama dated 03.12.2024, recovery of 16005 Grams of
Mephedrone was done. The present applicant is arrested on same
day in connection with the said crime on the ground that he was to
take the delivery of the contraband from Kharwa Mahesh and to
pass on the same to other accused.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on conclusion
of investigation charge-sheet has been filed and there is no
evidence in order to connect applicant with this crime. It is his
submission that there is no recovery of the contraband from the
applicant and recovery of sum of Rs. 88,06,600/- in cash from his
house is duly explained by him. He further argued that there is
documentary evidence on record to indicate that the amount in
cash was received towards the security deposit of leave and licence
agreement. It is his further submission that call detail records
indicating exchange of call between Mahesh and the applicant, is
not incriminating circumstance as there was business transaction
Page 2 of 4
th
04 March, 2026
14-BA-3532-2025
between them, as the applicant deals in scrap business. It is his
submission that considering the age of the applicant and since the
investigation is over, further custody of the applicant is not
necessary.
5. Learned APP opposed the said contention by pointing out
that there is recovery of commercial quantity of Mephedrone from
accused No. 1 and 2 which is 16 Kilogram in the weight. It is
submitted that there is prima-facie evidence on record in the form
of call records between applicant and Mahesh as well as accused
no.5, it is submitted that the cash found in the house of the
applicant is pursuant to the statement of accused no.3 and which
connects the applicant with the crime in question.
6. In so far as, the contention of the applicant with regard to
the information disclosure of the reasons at the time of his arrest
is concerned, prima-facie, perusal of the record indicates that there
is statement of the applicant himself at the time of drawing his
arrest panchnama about he being disclosed, the reasons for his
arrest has been well observed by the Trial Court in the order of
rejection of bail in paragraph 12 thereof.
7. There is no dispute about the fact that 16 Kg. of Mephedrone
was seized from accused no. 1 and 2. The said quantity is
commercial quantity. On the basis of statement of co-accused-
Mahesh it was reveled that applicant was to purchase the said
contraband from him and had made arrangement for the payment
Page 3 of 4
th
04 March, 2026
14-BA-3532-2025
in cash. Pursuant to the said information house of the accused was
raided wherein an amount sum of Rs. 88,06,600/- in cash was
found. Though, it is sought to be canvassed on behalf of the
applicant that the said amount pertains to the transaction of leave
and licence agreement and security deposit amount towards the
same, the document in question is not registered document and
hence at this stage this Court finds no reason or justification to
accept the same even as a probable explanation of huge cash being
found with accused.
8. There is further evidence in the form of CDR in respect of
call records exchanged between applicant and co-accused-Mahesh
(accused no.3 and accused and accused no. 5) who ultimately was
to get the said contraband from present applicant and the cash
sum of Rs. 1,04,85,300/- is seized from the co-accused. Thus,
there is prima-facie evidence to show involvement of the applicant
in this crime. Merely because applicant is aged 70 years plus, that
does not become sole ground for his enlargement on bail.
9. This court has no reason to believe that the applicant has not
committed the offence in question and is not likely to commit the
same in case is enlarged on bail.
10. In view of the above discussion, application stand dismissed.
(R. M. JOSHI, J.)
{
Page 4 of 4
th
04 March, 2026
Checking your session…