Shaikh Yusuf Shaikh Musa v. The State Of Maharashtra

- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD BAIL APPLICATION NO. 336 OF 2021 Shaikh Yusuf Shaikh Musa Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr. Siddiqui Sohel E., Advocate for the applicant. Mr. R.V. Dasalkar, APP for respondent/State.

CORAM : M.G. SEWLIKAR, J.

DATE : 29th June, 2021.

PER COURT :

1.

This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2.

The applicant is accused of committing offence under Sections 8, 20 and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. It is alleged that on 7th June, 2020, the police received information that the applicant was carrying ganja in the Car bearing No. MH 12 KL 5169. When this car was intercepted and search was undertaken, ganja weighing 33.858kg worth Rs.1,69,290/- was found in the car. Accordingly, panchanama was

- 2 - drawn, samples were taken and referred to the Chemical Analyser for analysis. As per police record, the applicant was arrested on 7th August, 2020. This fact is revealed from the charge-sheet. During investigation it was found that accused Nos. 2 and 3 had gone to purchase the ganja from accused No. 4. Accused No. 4 is absconding. At that time, applicant was driving the car. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be fled. 3.

Shri Siddiqui, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant was only driver of the vehicle. He had no role to play in the alleged offence. He submitted that the applicant was not in conscious possession of ganja. Charge-sheet shows that accused Nos. 2 and 3 had gone to purchase ganja and the applicant was sitting in the car. He was not aware of the fact that accused Nos. 2 and 3 had purchased ganja and deposited in the car. He submitted that the applicant is not the owner of the vehicle. As per the chargesheet, accused No. 2 is the owner of the vehicle. He submitted that this clearly shows that applicant was not in conscious possession of ganja. He, therefore, prayed for releasing applicant on bail. 4.

Learned APP submitted that the applicant was in

- 3 - conscious possession of ganja. He was also accompanying accused Nos. 2 and 3 while ganja was being purchased. He submitted that the role of applicant in procuring ganja shows that he was in conscious possession of ganja. Learned APP further submitted that applicant is the history sheeter. Offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code is registered against him. He, therefore, prayed for rejection of the application.

5.

From the charge-sheet, it appears that accused No. 2 is the owner of the vehicle. Nothing is pointed out by the parties indicating that any third person is the owner of the vehicle. Chargesheet, shows that accused Nos. 2 and 3 had gone to purchase ganja from accused No. 4. Learned APP could not point out anything to show that applicant was accompanying accused No. 2 and 3 while purchasing ganja. Therefore, at this stage, it appears that the applicant was not in conscious possession of ganja. Learned counsel Shri Siddique submitted that the role of accused Nos. 2 and 3 is more serious than the applicant. They had gone to purchase ganja and they have been released by the Sessions Court on bail. On the ground of parity, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. In view of this, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail. Hence the

- 4 - following order :-

ORDER

i) Application is allowed.

ii) Applicant be released on PR Bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount in connection with Crime No. 825/2020 registered with MIDC Police Station, Dist. Jalgaon, for the offences punishable under Sections 8, 20 and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

iii) These observations are made only for disposal of this application. The Trial Court shall not get infuenced by these observations during trial.

( M. G. SEWLIKAR ) Judge dyb