HC rejects discharge plea of drug supplier involved in multiple cases

Bombay HC rejects discharge plea of Hemraj Patel in drug trafficking cases, citing prima facie evidence against him. Bail plea also denied.

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court recently rejected the discharge plea of Hemraj Ganeshram Patel, who was allegedly involved in four separate cases related to drug trafficking in Mumbai. Patel had filed applications for discharge before the trial court, which were subsequently rejected. Dissatisfied with the decision, Patel approached the Bombay High Court, challenging the trial court’s order.

HT Image

The cases against Patel were registered under various sections of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The prosecution alleged that Patel was involved in supplying contraband substances in Mumbai.

In one instance, the seizure took place at a location in MIDC in Andheri (East) where Patel was apprehended on March 4, 2021, following allegations of his involvement in the supply chain. In another case, the seizure occurred at a residence in Andheri (East), Mumbai, from where Patel was arrested on March 17, 2021, after being implicated as a supplier by a co-accused.

Seizures were also made at multiple locations in Mumbai in connection with another case, where Patel was accused of being a supplier based on disclosures made by a co-accused during interrogation.

In yet another case, the seizure occurred at a Model Post Office in Mumbai, with certain contraband recovered from the residential premises of a co-accused. Patel was arrested on February 18, 2021, after his involvement as a supplier was disclosed during interrogation.

During the proceedings, Patel’s counsel argued that there was insufficient evidence to frame charges against him and that the prosecution was solely relying on the statements of the co-accused, which are not admissible as evidence.

However, the prosecution contended that there was prima facie evidence to prosecute Patel and that he was allegedly involved in supplying contraband substances. After considering the arguments from both sides, the court observed that while the statements of the co-accused may not be admissible as evidence, there was enough material on record to proceed with the trial. The court also noted that Patel’s alleged involvement in the offences, including charges of conspiracy, needed to be tested during the trial.

In its order, the court rejected Patel’s bail plea, stating that there was no sufficient ground to grant him bail at this stage.