HC grants default bail to 8 in 1,837-kg MD case over procedural lapses

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Monday granted default bail to eight accused in a case involving the seizure of 1,837 kg of mephedrone (MD), ruling that the seriousness of the alleged crime and the massive quantity of drugs seized cannot override an accused’s legal right to bail when the prosecution fails to follow the required procedure

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Monday granted default bail to eight accused in a case involving the seizure of 1,837 kg of mephedrone (MD), ruling that the seriousness of the alleged crime and the massive quantity of drugs seized cannot override an accused’s legal right to bail when the prosecution fails to follow the required procedure.

A single-judge bench of justice Milind Jadhav held that in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics, investigators get 180 days to complete their probe, and any extension beyond that period must strictly comply with the safeguards laid down under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.

The court said the huge quantity of drugs seized and the seriousness of the allegations “could not be used to cure non-compliance with the procedure governing extension of that period”.

The case began with an FIR registered at Samarth police station in Pune, after two persons were arrested at Somwar Peth in February 2024 while allegedly carrying 500 grams of MD.

As the investigation progressed, police made several more seizures. These included 663.8 kg of MD from Earthchem Laboratories at Kurkumbh MIDC, 319 kg from New Delhi, another 651 kg from a premises in New Delhi, and 148.748 kg from Sangli.

The Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) later took over the investigation from the police and arraigned 20 accused in the case. Investigating officers eventually recovered a total of 1,837 kg, 84 grams and 120 milligrams of MD during the entire operation. The legal battle centred on what happened after the initial 180-day period for completing the investigation expired.

The NCB sought an additional six months to complete the investigation, and the Pune sessions court allowed the extension in August 2024. The accused subsequently approached the special court for bail in December 2024, but their application was rejected.

Appearing for the accused, advocate Tabish Mooman, along with other advocates, challenged the validity of the extension. They argued that when the prosecution sought the additional time, the accused had not been produced before the trial court either physically or through video-conferencing. The lawyers also argued that the accused were not informed about the report submitted by the prosecution seeking the extension before the sessions court passed its order.

The NCB opposed the plea, arguing that its application seeking an extension had been filed before the initial 180-day period expired and that the charge-sheet was subsequently filed within the extended period. Therefore, it contended, the accused no longer had a right to seek default bail.

The High Court disagreed. Justice Jadhav held that merely filing the extension application before the expiry of 180 days was not enough. Since the prosecution had to follow a specific procedure before the investigation period could be extended, it could not rely on the extension order unless it first established that the order had been validly passed in accordance with the law.

“The prosecution cannot derive an advantage from an extension order without first demonstrating that the order was validly passed in accordance with the statutory conditions and the binding principles governing such extension,” the court said.

The bench also pointed out that the August 2024 order did not record that the accused were present before the trial court, either physically or through video-conferencing, when the extension application was considered.

The court said that the fact that advocates appeared for some of the accused, or that some accused had submitted their response, could not by itself prove that the required procedure had been followed.

The court acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations and said the societal ramifications highlighted by the prosecution could not be ignored. However, it stressed that an order extending the investigation period has a direct bearing on the personal liberty of an accused, as it allows investigators to continue the probe while keeping the accused in custody beyond the period ordinarily permitted by law.

The court therefore held that the procedural safeguards could not be bypassed merely because the case involved a large quantity of drugs.

Accordingly, the High Court directed the authorities to release the eight accused on default bail, subject to each furnishing a personal bond of ₹1 lakh.