Blog

Case title: SHOHEB AHAMED VS. STATE BY C.E.N. CRIME POLICE STATION

Case no: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4303 OF 2024

Order on: 21 May, 2024

Quorum: THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

Fact of the case:

In this case, Shoheb Ahamed, aged around 30, was arrested under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The prosecution suspected that after receiving credible information regarding the possession of dry ganja by the accused, a raid was conducted at his residence. During the raid, dry ganja weighing approximately 1.126 kgs and cash amounting to Rs. 50,000/- were seized from the accused’s house. The accused, Shoheb Ahamed, had been in judicial custody since March 28, 2024, and filed a petition seeking bail.

Legal provisions:

Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act): These sections deals with the possession and illegal trafficking of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, prescribing penalties for offenders.

Section 439 of Cr. P.C. : Deals with Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail.

Contentions of Appellant:

The petitioner argued that the raid procedure conducted by the complainant was flawed and not conducted in accordance with legal requirements. It was contended that the petitioner had not committed any offenses as alleged by the complainant and that the seized contraband had not been sent for chemical analysis to determine its nature. The petitioner claimed to be falsely implicated in the case to boost statistics, asserting his innocence and lack of habitual offending behaviour. It was emphasized that the quantity of contraband seized was not a commercial quantity, and the petitioner’s involvement in the alleged offense was minimal.

Contentions of Respondents:

The respondent opposed the bail petition, stating that the contraband was seized from the petitioner’s residence, where he was residing as a tenant. It was argued that independent witnesses supported the seizure mahazar, indicating the authenticity of the raid and seizure. The respondent highlighted the seriousness of the offense, emphasizing the societal harm caused by the illegal trafficking of narcotics and psychotropic substances. It was contended that the petitioner’s involvement in the offense, along with others, posed a risk to society, especially the youth, and warranted denial of bail to prevent further offenses.

Court analysis & Judgement:

The court observed the facts, including the raid procedure and the quantity of contraband seized, as well as the contentions of both the petitioner and the respondent. After considering the arguments presented, the court found that the raid procedure was conducted based on credible information, and the seizure of dry ganja from the petitioner’s residence was duly supported by independent witnesses. The court accepted the seizure of approximately 1.126 kgs of dry ganja and Rs. 50,000/- in cash from the petitioner’s house during the raid conducted by the complainant based on credible information. However, it also considered the petitioner’s argument that proper raid procedures were not followed and that the contraband seized had not undergone chemical analysis.

Moreover, the court took into account the petitioner’s claim of being falsely implicated in the case for statistical purposes and his assertion that he was not a habitual offender. It noted that the quantity of contraband seized was not of a commercial scale. Considering these factors the court concluded that bail should be granted to the petitioner. It emphasized that the seized contraband was not of a commercial quantity and that the petitioner was not a habitual offender. The court also considered the societal impact and potential risks associated with granting bail.

Eventually, the court allowed the bail petition and ordered the petitioner to be released on bail upon execution of a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and with certain conditions. These conditions included regular appearances before the jurisdictional police and the trial court, refraining from committing similar offenses, and not leaving the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission. The court warned that violation of these conditions could result in the cancellation of bail.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed By- Antara Ghosh