Bombay High Court
ASHIF HUSSAIN JEDAN SAHIKH BASHA @ASHIF SHAIKHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
Bail was granted to the applicant with conditions, applying the principle of parity and finding no substantial risk of flight or evidence tampering.
Summary
The applicant, Ashif Hussain Jedan Sahikh Basha, was charged under Sections 8(c) read with 22, 22(c), 27(a) and 29 of the NDPS Act for allegedly handling the sale proceeds of 220 bottles of codeine phosphate and chlorpheniramine maleate syrup seized in Thane. The prosecution contended that he facilitated the drug trade by receiving money in his bank account and disbursing it to the primary accused, thereby abetting the offence. The defence argued that co‑accused A1, A2 and A4 had already been released on bail and that the principle of parity required the applicant’s release as well, emphasizing his lack of prior criminal record and low risk of absconding or tampering with evidence. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed bail, asserting that the applicant’s active involvement distinguished him from the others. The Court examined the bail criteria under the Criminal Procedure Code, found no substantial reason to deny bail, and applied the parity principle. Consequently, the Court granted bail with a bond of Rs 1,00,000 and imposed standard conditions such as monthly police reporting and non‑interference with witnesses. The bail order was pronounced, disposing of the application in the applicant’s favour.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant, alleged to have dealt with proceeds of NDPS contraband, is entitled to bail.
- Whether the principle of parity with co‑accused already released on bail mandates the applicant's release.
- Whether there is a likelihood of the applicant tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or absconding.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 22, 22(c), 27(a), 29, 8(c)
Subjects
- NDPS Act
- bail
- abettor
- parity principle
- criminal procedure
- codeine syrup
- money handling
Judgment
HEMANT
912.BA3583.24.DOC
CHANDERSEN H.C.SHIV
SHIV
Digitally signed by
HEMANT
CHANDERSEN SHIV IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Date: 2026.09.19
14:07:20 +0300 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.3583 OF 2024
Ashif Hussain Jedan Sahikh Basha
@ Ashif Shaikh …Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra …Respondent
Mr. Rounak Naik with Lochan Chandka for the applicant.
Ms. Veera Shinde, APP for the Respondent-State.
CORAM: SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
DATED : 18th SEPTEMBER, 2026
P.C. :-
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record.
2. Present Application seeks release of the applicant on bail in
Special Case No.90 of 2024 arising out of C.R. No.I-628 of 2023,
registered with Kashimira police station, Thane for the offence
punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 22, 22(c), 27(a) and 29 of
the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for
short “NDPS Act”).
3. The prosecution case is that, on 1st September 2023, at about
19:55 hours, at Godbunder Area, A1 was found in possession of 220
bottles, each containing 100 ml of Codeine Phosphate and
Chlorpheriramine Maleate syrup. The said contraband bottles were
seized under the panchnama. Accordingly, the present offence came
to be registered. During the investigation with A1 has disclosed that,
the said contraband bottles were supplied by A2 and he had
obtained it from the wanted accused Changanla Ghansi @ Sanjay
Modi. The investigation also revealed that A2 used to deposit the
Page 1 of 3
H.C.SHIV 912.BA3583.24.DOC
sale proceeds of the contraband bottles in the bank account of the
present applicant. The applicant used to withdraw the said money
and pay the same to absconding accused Changanla Ghansi and his
wife, in cash or by bank transfer. The applicant used to retain
certain amount. Thus, the applicant abetted in this crime to earn
money. Therefore, the applicant and the co-accused were arrested.
On completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed. The
trial Court declined to release the applicant on bail.
4. Ms. Shinde, learned APP, on the other hand, opposed the
submissions and submitted that the applicant had aided in the
crime by dealing with the sale proceeds of the contraband and he
also earned money out of it. This solitary fact distinguishes the case
of the applicant from the case against the co-accused persons. The
CDR records indicate that the applicant and the wanted accused
were in constant contact with each other to commit this crime. This
is sufficient to deny the bail.
5. As submitted by Mr. Naik, learned Counsel, A1, A2 and A4 are
released on bail. The role of A2, A4 and the applicant stand on equal
footing. Therefore, the principle of parity is applicable to the
applicant. He has no criminal antecedents. The applicant is not
likely to tamper with the prosecution evidence and repeat the
offence. He is not likely to abscond.
6. In view thereof, the applicant is entitled for bail. Hence,
Order :-
(i) The applicant – Ashif Hussain Jedan Sahikh Basha @
Ashif Shaikh be released on bail in aforesaid FIR registered
with Kashimira police station, Thane on his executing P.R.
Page 2 of 3
H.C.SHIV 912.BA3583.24.DOC
Bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one or two sureties in
the like amount.
(ii) The applicant shall mark his attendance at Kashimira
police station, Thane on 1 st day of each calender month
between 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. till conclusion of the trial.
(iii) The applicant shall regularly attend the proceedings
before the jurisdictional Court unless exempted by the said
Court, for the reasons to be recorded in writing.
(iv) The applicant shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial
Court till conclusion of the trial.
(v) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence and shall not directly or indirectly influence upon
the prosecution witnesses to prevent them from deposing
against him.
(vi) On being released from jail, the applicant shall furnish
his contact number and residential address to the
Investigating Officer and shall keep him updated, in case
there is any change.
(vii) The applicant shall not indulge in identical activities for
which he has been arraigned in this case.
(viii) It is clarified that any observation made in the present
order are for the purpose of deciding the present Bail
Application and should not influence the out come of the trial
and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on the
merits of the case.
8. Bail Application stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.
(SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)
Page 3 of 3
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.