- Case
- AMEY SANJAY JADHAV v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (Bombay High Court, 03-01-2025)
- Law
- Constitution of India, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
Facts: The applicant, Amey Sanjay Jadhav, sought bail in connection with C.R. No. 14 of 2022, registered at Wadala Police Station, for offenses under Sections 8(c), 20(c), and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. He was arrested on 31.01.2022. The prosecution alleged that Jadhav and a co-accused were found carrying 'charas' (a narcotic substance) on a motorcycle. Jadhav allegedly carried 1300 grams (commercial quantity) in a polythene bag, while the co-accused carried 700 grams.
Procedural Posture: The applicant filed a bail application before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, arguing non-compliance with Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act, and parity with co-accused who were already granted bail. The State opposed the bail, citing the commercial quantity of the seized substance and the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Issue: Whether the applicant should be granted bail considering the alleged non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, discrepancies in the prosecution's case, prolonged incarceration, and parity with co-accused already granted bail, despite the recovery of a commercial quantity of narcotics.
Holding: The bail application was allowed, and the applicant was ordered to be released on bail subject to certain conditions.
Reasoning: The Court found several discrepancies in the prosecution's case, including the lack of independent witnesses, delays in preparing the inventory panchanama, and inconsistencies regarding who carried the contraband. The Court noted that the seizure was a "chance recovery made after sunset" and that compliance with Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act was mandatory. The Court also considered the applicant's prolonged incarceration (nearly 3 years), lack of criminal antecedents, and the slow progress of the trial. The Court relied on precedents, including Rabi Prakash Vs. The State of Odisa, emphasizing that prolonged incarceration militates against the fundamental right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. While acknowledging the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the Court found that the discrepancies and prolonged incarceration warranted granting bail.
