HC grants bail to eight MD manufacturing and trafficking accused, citing procedural flaws | Bombay News

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Monday granted bail to eight individuals accused of manufacturing and trafficking 20 kilograms of mephedrone (MD), saying it found critical procedural lapses in the handling of evidence. Justice Gauri Godse ruled that the prosecution’s reliance on samples taken at the scene, instead of those certified by a magistrate, undermined the credibility of the evidence.

On October 7, 2020, authorities seized 20 kilograms of MD in an operation registered at Chakan police station, Pune. The operation revealed that they were linked to several factories, including Sanyog Biotech, Nimbus Pharma and Alkemi Industries. The accused are Kiran Machhindra Kale, 30, Afjal Hussain Abbas Sunsara, 45, Manoj Eknath Palande, 42, and Parshuram Bhalchandra Jogal, 37.

The prosecution alleged that the MD was sold to Zuby Udoka, thereby expanding the operation. However, the defense argued that the mandatory procedure under Section 52-A (inventory and sampling before a Magistrate) of the NDPS Act, requiring sampling and certification before a Magistrate, was not complied with . They believe that this procedural flaw undermines the indictment filed on September 28, 2021 and casts doubt on the chemical analysis report.

The defense counsel led by advocate Sana Raees Khan, advocate Aditya Parmar and others argued that the mandatory procedure under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act was not followed . The plaintiffs’ lawyers cited Supreme Court precedents, including Union of India v. Mohanlal, saying the samples must be certified by a magistrate to serve as primary evidence. The samples were taken on site and sent for chemical analysis without judicial oversight, in violation of legal requirements.

Special prosecutor Shishir Hiray claimed that at the time of the seizure in October 2020, procedures in place allowed samples to be taken on site. He argued that the chemical analysis reports confirmed the presence of MD and that the money and equipment seized were linked to the accused. Hiray also invoked Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which imposes strict conditions for bail, requiring proof that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to reoffend, particularly for serious drug offences, emphasizing that the applicants had to meet a double test to obtain bail.

Justice Gauri Godse, however, ruled that compliance with Section 52-A of the NDPS Act was mandatory and the absence of certified samples compromised the credibility of the prosecution’s evidence. The court noted that relying on samples taken on site, rather than those certified by a magistrate, was contrary to established legal principles. Furthermore, the allegations against the applicants were based on circumstantial evidence, without a direct link to the prohibited items seized.

Considering the four years of incarceration of the petitioners, the lack of clear evidence and the improbability of a speedy conclusion of the trial, the court found that the petitioners had satisfied the two conditions of section 37 of the NDPS Act . Justice Godse ordered their release on bail providing sureties of ₹50,000 each and one or two sureties of the same amount.