Moiez Shabbit Lokhandwala v. Narcotics Control Bureau

Ajay IN IN THE THE HIGH HIGH COURT COURT OF OF JUDICATURE JUDICATURE AT AT BOMBAY BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 893 OF 2024 Moiz Shabbir Lokhandwala .. Applicant

Versus

Narcotics Control Bureau .. Respondent WITH CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3688 OF 2024 Mohammed Salman Mohammed Shafi .. Applicant

Versus

Narcotics Control Bureau .. Respondent ....................

 Mr. Rajendra Bidkar, Advocate for Applicant in BA No.893 of 2024.  Ms. Lochan P. Chandka, Advocate for Applicant in BA No.3688 of 2024.

 Mr. Shriram Shirsat, APP for Respondent.

....................

CORAM

: MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

DATE : MARCH 10, 2025.

P.C.:

1.

Heard Mr. Bidkar, learned Advocate for Applicant in BA No. 893 of 2024; Ms. Chandka, learned Advocate for Applicant in BA No. 3688 of 2024 and Mr. Shirsat, learned APP for Respondent - NCB. 2.

Learned Prosecutor Mr. Shirsat has drawn my attention to the last order dated 07.03.2025. I have perused the order. Thereafter before I could ask the learned Advocates for the Applicants about their instructions, both learned Advocates have persuaded me to peruse the previous order dated 13.02.2025 which was passed on the basis of submissions made by them on merits. In that regard they would

persuade me to consider the long incarceration of the Applicants of almost 2 years in Bail Application No.3688 of 2024 and 2.5 years in Bail Application No.893 of 2024 and would submit that the Applicants be granted bail solely in view of the fact that the trial would be protracted endlessly.

3.

Mr. Bidkar has informed the Court that though the prosecution has assured the Court across the bar that they will complete the trial and make all efforts to complete the same within 3 months from today but the same would be practically improbable considering the present status of the trial wherein one of the Coaccused is not represented by any Advocate and 7 witnesses are yet to be examined by the prosecution. Both learned Advocates would therefore persuade the Court to not pass any order on the merits of the matter and direct the Trial Court to determine the trial within one month from today.

4.

I have considered the submissions of all the learned Advocates at the bar but I have expressed my reluctance to both Advocates for Applicants for the reason in view of the prima facie opinion recorded by me in paragraph No.3 of the order dated 07.03.2025.

5.

Once I have expressed my mind, both the learned Advocates have persuaded the Court to keep the present Bail Application pending

for a period of three (3) months from today and allow the Applicants to renew their prayer / Application for Bail thereafter in the event if the trial is protracted beyond three (3) months. This request made by both the learned Advocates for Applicant can be granted. 6.

Since the statement of the learned Prosecutor that the trial would be completed within three months and all efforts will be made by the prosecution to do so is recorded in paragraph No.2.1 of order dated 07.03.2024, I direct the Trial Court to complete the trial as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of three (3) months from today preferably.

7.

In view of the above directions, list both Bail Applications on 10th June, 2025.

[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] Ajay AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE Date: 2025.03.10 20:04:37 +0530 AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE