“Only Small Quantity Of Ganja Is Involved”: Bombay HC Grants Bail To Accused Who Allegedly Planted Drugs On Actor Travelling To Dubai For Auditions
The Bombay High Court granted bail to two accused who allegedly planted drugs on an actor travelling to Dubai for auditions, while observing that the alleged quantity of drugs found was small.
The Court noted that to date, even the charges were not framed against the accused who were facing prosecution for offences under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 385 and 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 23, 24, 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(A) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. and they had already suffered incarceration for about one year and five months.
A Single Bench of Justice Manish Pitale observed, “In the present case, charge-sheet is already filed. The applicants have suffered incarceration for about one year and five months. Even as per the material available on record, only small quantity of Ganja is involved. In such a situation, no purpose would be served by continuing the custody of the applicants, and therefore, a case is made out for enlarging the applicants on bail.”
Advocate Aruna Pai appeared for the applicant, while Advocate Shailesh Kharat represented the respondent.
The prosecution alleged that the accused conspired to plant a small quantity of Ganja (500 grams) in a trophy, which was handed over to the daughter of the informant. The applicants led her to believe she was travelling to Dubai for an audition, arranging her travel and stay. According to the prosecution, this was allegedly done because one of the accused had a dispute with the informant and in order to teach him a lesson, the said accused intended to falsely implicate the daughter of the informant in a case involving possession and transport of contraband material.
Upon arrival in Sharjah, the informant's daughter found that she had been duped as the return tickets were allegedly fabricated which gave rise to the registration of the FIR.
The accused argued that the allegation against them pertained to a small quantity of contraband, for which the punishment ranged between one year and two years. Since they had already undergone about one year and five months of incarceration, they argued that they should be granted bail.
The High Court noted, “It is an admitted position that till date, even charge has not been framed. The applicants have already suffered incarceration for about one year and five months.”
The Bench referred to the decision in Abdulmajid Abdulsattar Memon v. State of Gujarat (2024), wherein the Apex Court granted bail to the accused undertrial as he had undergone custody for about one year and three months. Considering the lack of progress in the trial, the Supreme Court found it fit to enlarge the appellant therein on bail.
Consequently, the Court released the accused on bail upon furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.50,000/- each with one or two sureties before the trial court.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the bail application.
Cause Title: Rajesh Damodar Bobhate v. State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-AS:37797)
Appearance:
Applicant: Advocates Aruna Pai, Ayaz Khan, N. M. Nadar and Mallika Sharma
Respondent: Advocates Shailesh Kharat, Sangram Jadhav and Suyash Khose; APP Rutuja A. Ambekar and Sagar R. Agarkar
