Bombay High Court

MOHAMMED KAYUM AKBAR ALI SHAIKHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Disposal: Allowed

Holding

The Court held that there were reasonable grounds to believe the applicant was not involved in the NDPS offences, so Section 37 does not apply and bail is to be granted.

Summary

The applicant, Mohammed Kayum Akbar Ali Shaikh, was arrested in a narcotics case (Crime No. 52 of 2025) based primarily on a co‑accused's statement and alleged call‑detail records. He sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, contending that no contraband was found on him and that the prosecution’s evidence was either irrelevant or inadmissible. The State argued that the co‑accused’s statements and CDRs linked the applicant to the offence and highlighted his alleged antecedents. The Court examined the admissibility of the co‑accused’s statement under the NDPS Act and the relevance of the CDRs, finding no material directly connecting the applicant to the crime. Consequently, the Court held that reasonable doubt existed, the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act did not apply, and granted bail with conditions.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 483 of the BNSS in a case involving NDPS offences.
Whether the co‑accused's statement made to police is admissible against the applicant under the NDPS Act and Evidence Act.
Whether the call‑detail records presented by the prosecution establish a sufficient link to the offence for denial of bail.
Whether Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which imposes a presumption of guilt, is applicable in this case.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 25
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 21(c), 25, 29, 37, 53, 67, 8(c)

Subjects

bail
NDPS Act
co‑accused statement
call detail records
Section 37 NDPS
Section 483 BNSS
evidentiary admissibility
commercial quantity

Judgment

1/7
904-BA-467-2026 (CR).DOC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 467 OF 2026

Mohammed Kayum Akbar Ali Shaikh …...Applicant
Versus.
The State Of Maharashtra And Another …...Respondents

-----

Ms. Munira Palanpurwala (Through V.C.), for Applicant.
Ms. Shubhangi N. Deshmukh, A.P.P., for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 - State.
Mr. Nagesh Kamble, LCB Sangli, present.
-------

Digitally
signed by
SHANTANU CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
SHANTANU SHANKARSA
SHANKARSA DHUDUM
DHUDUM Date:
2026.10.03
11:49:32
DATE : 1st OCTOBER, 2026.
+0530

P.C.

1. Heard, Ms. Munira Palanpurwala, learned Advocate for the

Applicant and Ms. Shubhangi N. Deshmukh, learned A.P.P. for Respondent

Nos. 1 and 2–State.

2. By this Application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), the Applicant seeks

Regular Bail in connection with Crime No. 52 of 2025 registered at Vita

Police Station, District Sangli, for the offences punishable under Sections

8(c), 21(c), 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances

Act, 1985 (for short, “NDPS Act”).

Shantanu S. Dhudum
2/7
904-BA-467-2026 (CR).DOC

3. Ms. Munira Palanpurwala, learned Advocate for the Applicant,

states that there are nine (9) accused in Crime No. 52 of 2025, with the

Applicant being Accused No. 9. She further states that the said crime has

been registered as Special Case No. 39 of 2025 and is pending before the

Additional Sessions Judge, Vita, District Sangli (the “Trial Court”).

4. In brief, the prosecution case is that the Police received secret

information that Balraj Amar Katari (Accused No. 1) would be transporting

and selling a narcotic substance (mephedrone) in a four-wheeler at Ram

Krishna Hari Mauli Industries, Karve, MIDC, Vita. Accordingly, a raiding

team was constituted and a raid was conducted at the said spot. During the

raid, the driver (Prathamesh), Umesh Sote and Accused No. 1, who was

travelling as a passenger in the said vehicle, were found in the said vehicle.

Accused No. 1 was apprehended with mephedrone, concealed in a plastic

bag kept inside a travelling bag, for the purpose of sale.

5. The Applicant was arrested on 2 nd March 2025. The Bail

Application filed by the Applicant at Exhibit-54 in Special Case No. 39 of

2025 was rejected by the Trial Court on 4th March 2026.

6. Ms. Munira Palanpurwala, learned Advocate for the Applicant,

submits that the Applicant has been arrested in the present crime based on

a statement made by a co-accused, Abdul Razzak Abdul Qadar Shaikh

(Accused No. 5). She submits that there is no material in the entire charge-

sheet to indicate the involvement of the Applicant in the present crime. She

Shantanu S. Dhudum
3/7
904-BA-467-2026 (CR).DOC

further submits that no contraband was recovered from the possession of

the Applicant and that the prosecution has not placed on record any

material in the form of call detail records (CDRs) or financial transactions

to indicate the involvement of the Applicant in the present crime. She,

therefore, seeks indulgence of this Court and prays for grant of bail to the

Applicant.

7. Ms. Shubhangi N. Deshmukh, learned A.P.P. for Respondent Nos.

1 and 2–State, opposes the Application and submits that the name of the

Applicant was disclosed by Accused Nos. 5 and 8 during the investigation

while they were in custody. She further submits that in addition to the

statement made by the co-accused, the prosecution has relied on CDRs

indicating that the Applicant was in contact with Accused No. 5 (Abdul

Razzak Abdul Qadar Shaikh) and Accused No. 8 (Mahammad Ismail

Mahammad Salim Khan). She submits that the Applicant has antecedents.

8. In response to the submissions made by Ms. Shubhangi N.

Deshmukh, learned A.P.P., Ms. Munira Palanpurwala, learned Advocate for

the Applicant, submits that the CDR’s relied upon by the prosecution do not

pertain to the period of the incident referred to in Crime No. 52 of 2025, or

to the period immediately after registration of Crime No. 52 of 2025. She

further submits that even if the said CDR’s are taken into consideration,

they pertain to the month of March 2025 and therefore have no connection

Shantanu S. Dhudum
4/7
904-BA-467-2026 (CR).DOC

with the offence in Crime No. 52 of 2025. She submits that the Applicant

has no antecedents in relation to any offence under the NDPS Act.

9. The record was perused with the assistance of the learned

Advocates for the parties.

10. It is not disputed that the quantity of contraband involved in the

present offence is commercial.

11. A perusal of the charge-sheet and the documents produced along

with it, prima facie, does not indicate the involvement of the Applicant in

Crime No. 52 of 2025. No contraband was recovered from the Applicant.

As submitted by Ms. Munira Palanpurwala, learned Advocate for the

Applicant and not controverted by Ms. Shubhangi N. Deshmukh, learned

A.P.P., the Applicant is implicated in the present crime on the basis of a

statement made by a co-accused while in police custody.

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T ofan Singh vs. State

of Tamil Nadu1 has observed as follows:

“158.1. That the officers who are invested with powers under Section
53 of the NDPS Act are “police officers” within the meaning
of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, as a result of which any
confessional statement made to them would be barred under
the provisions of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and cannot
be taken into account in order to convict an accused under
the NDPS Act.

1 (2021) 4 SCC 1

Shantanu S. Dhudum
5/7
904-BA-467-2026 (CR).DOC

158.2. That a statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act
cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an
offence under the NDPS Act.”

13. As submitted by Ms. Munira Palanpurwala, learned Advocate for

the Applicant, the CDR’s relied upon by Ms. Shubhangi N. Deshmukh,

learned A.P.P., do not indicate any proximity to the date of the offence in

Crime No. 52 of 2025. Even otherwise, the prosecution has not produced

transcripts of any calls between the Applicant and the co-accused.

14. In the above circumstances, prima facie, there are reasonable

grounds to believe that the Applicant is not involved in the offences in

Crime No. 52 of 2025. Accordingly, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS

Act would not apply. The Applicant is therefore entitled to bail.

15. At this stage, Ms. Shubhangi N. Deshmukh, learned A.P.P. for

Respondent Nos. 1 and 2–State, submits that stringent conditions may be

imposed on the Applicant.

16. In view of the above, this Application is allowed on the following

terms and conditions:

ORDER

A) The Applicant-Mohammed Kayum Akbar Ali Shaikh, shall

be released on bail in Crime No. 52 of 2025 registered at

the Vita Police Station, District Sangli, upon furnishing a

Shantanu S. Dhudum
6/7
904-BA-467-2026 (CR).DOC

P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh

Only), with two solvent sureties in the like amount, to the

satisfaction of the Additional Sessions Judge, Vita, District

Sangli, in Special Case No. 39 of 2025.

B) The Applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any

inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted

with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person

from disclosing those facts to the Court or to any police

officer. The Applicant shall not tamper with the evidence in

any manner.

C) The Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer on

the 2nd Monday of each month from 10.00 a.m. to 12.00

p.m., commencing on 12th October 2026, until the

conclusion of the trial in Special Case No. 39 of 2025.

D) Within three (3) days of his release, the Applicant shall

surrender his passport, if any, to the Trial Court in Special

Case No. 39 of 2025.

E) Upon his release, the Applicant shall, within three (3) days,

furnish his cell phone number/ WhatsApp number and

residential address, along with proof, to the Investigating

Shantanu S. Dhudum
7/7
904-BA-467-2026 (CR).DOC

Officer, Vita Police Station, District Sangli, and shall keep

the same updated in case of any change thereto.

F) The Applicant shall cooperate in the conduct of the trial

and shall regularly appear before the Trial Court in Special

Case No. 39 of 2025 on each date fixed, unless specifically

exempted by the Trial Court. If the Applicant fails to

appear before the Trial Court on any date fixed in Special

Case No. 39 of 2025, it will be considered a breach of

condition and the Trial Court will be at liberty to pass

appropriate orders.

G) The Applicant shall not indulge in or be involved in any

offence under the NDPS Act.

17. Criminal Bail Application No.467 of 2026 is disposed.

( ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)

Shantanu S. Dhudum

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…