Firoz @ Mastan Rasul Shaikh v. The State Of Maharashtra
Harish
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1937 OF 2025 HARISH VITHAL CHAUDHARI Firoz @ Mastan Rasul Shaikh ...Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
...Respondent
by HARISH VITHAL CHAUDHARI Date:
2025.09.26 11:15:03 +0530 Mr. Sharad T. Bhosale for the Applicant.
Ms. Veers Shinde, APP for the Respondent-State. CORAM :
SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE :
23rd SEPTEMBER 2025 P.C.:
1.
The applicant is apprehending arrest in crime No.353 of 2025 registered with Barshi Police Station, Dist-Solapur for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 29 and 22(B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985, Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act,1959 and Section 135 of Bombay Police Act, 1951 2.
It is prosecution's case that on 17th April, 2025, on secret information, the police intercepted one car. In search of said car, the police found 20.04 gram Mephedrone (MD) and one country made pistol along with three live cartridges. On the spot, the police has arrested three accused persons. In the 1/3
investigation it revealed that the seized Maphedrone was purchased from the applicant.
3.
It is the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. There is no evidence against the applicant that he has sold the said Mephedrone to the co-accused. The statement of the co-accused is not admissible. There is no direct link against the applicant. Hence, requested to allow the application.
4.
It is contention of learned APP that in investigation it revealed that the seized Mephedrone was purchased by the arrested accused from the applicant. The amount of Rs. 17,000/- was transferred in the bank account of the applicant from the bank account of arrested accused no. 8- Shri.Aayaz. The subsequent offence under NDPS Act is registered against the applicant. Under provisions of NDPS Act, statement of coaccused is admissible. Considering the fact that the applicant is supplier of Mephedrone, his custodial interrogation is required. Hence, requested to reject the application.
5.
I have heard both learned counsel, perused the FIR and documents produced on record.
2/3
6.
The police papers produced on record shows that four bank transactions are done between the applicant and accused no. 8. The allegations against the applicant are that he is supplier of Mephedrone. Subsequent offence is also registered against the applicant under same section. Investigation is in progress. Considering these facts, custodial interrogation of the applicant is required and I pass following order:
ORDER
Application is rejected.
[SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.] 3/3