Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Haridas Shankar Gaikwad, aged 52 years, filed a Criminal Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 162 of 2025 registered at Manjunath Nagar Police Station, Solapur, for offences under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), 29, and 35 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The case arose from a police raid on 28 February 2025, where 20 kg of ganja was recovered from a vehicle. The petitioner was the driver of the vehicle and was named in the statement of co-accused. The petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated and that the recovery was not from his conscious possession. The State opposed the bail, contending that the quantity was commercial and that custodial interrogation was necessary. The court, after hearing both sides, held that the quantity of ganja (20 kg) is commercial under the NDPS Act, and Section 37 imposes strict conditions for bail. The court noted that the petitioner was named in the statement of co-accused and that custodial interrogation is essential to investigate the larger conspiracy. The court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner failed to satisfy the conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act and that anticipatory bail would hamper the investigation.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Anticipatory Bail - Section 438 CrPC - Maintainability - Petitioner sought anticipatory bail in NDPS case involving commercial quantity of ganja - Court held that when the quantity is commercial, Section 37 of NDPS Act imposes stringent conditions and anticipatory bail is not to be granted lightly - Held that custodial interrogation is necessary to unearth the larger conspiracy (Paras 5-7). B) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Commercial Quantity - Section 37 NDPS Act - Bail Conditions - Recovery of 20 kg ganja, which is commercial quantity - Court noted that Section 37 mandates that bail cannot be granted unless the court is satisfied that the accused is not guilty and will not commit any offence while on bail - Held that the petitioner failed to satisfy these conditions (Paras 5-7). C) Criminal Procedure Code - Anticipatory Bail - Section 438 CrPC - Custodial Interrogation - Petitioner was named in the statement of co-accused and recovery was from a vehicle driven by him - Court held that custodial interrogation is essential to investigate the source and network of drug trafficking - Held that anticipatory bail would hamper investigation (Paras 5-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in connection with an offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, involving a commercial quantity of ganja.
Final Decision
The petition for anticipatory bail is dismissed. The court held that the petitioner failed to satisfy the conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act and that custodial interrogation is necessary.
Law Points
- Anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC is not maintainable when the offence involves commercial quantity under NDPS Act
- Section 37 imposes strict conditions for bail
- custodial interrogation is necessary for investigation of drug trafficking networks
