H.C.SHIV 918.BA1432.26.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1432 OF 2026 Hafijulla Sohabatali Khan @ Bhattu …Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra …Respondent Ms. Aafreen Shaikh with Ms. Nikhat Shaikh for the Applicant. Ms. Anagha Deshmukh, APP for Respondent-State. Mr. Madhukar Moule, PSI, Shivaji Nagar police station present. CORAM: SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J. DATED : 8th SEPTEMBER, 2026 P.C. :- 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record. 2. The applicant seeks his release on bail in connection with Crime No.600 of 2025, registered with Shivaji Nagar police station, Mumbai for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b), 22(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “NDPS Act”), on the report dated 8th August, 2025 lodged by Mr. Dada Virkar, PHC. 3. The prosecution case is that, on 8th August 2025, at about 00:15 hours, at Baiganwadi, Govandi, Mumbai Accused Nos.1 to 3 were found in possession of 11 bottles of Codeine Phosphate cough syrup, 6.97 gms heroin and 3.445 kg. of Ganja, respectively. Accordingly, the aforesaid crime came to be registered and said accused were arrested. During interrogation, Accused Nos.1 to 3 disclosed that they had procured the contraband from the applicant, which led to his arrest. The applicant disclosed that he used to procure Heroin from Accused No.6 and Ganja from others and sell it in Shivaji Nagar. Accused No.5 is the wife of the applicant and, as HEMANT CHANDERSEN SHIV Digitally signed by HEMANT CHANDERSEN SHIV Date: 2026.09.11 20:12:12 +0300 H.C.SHIV 918.BA1432.26.DOC alleged, she used to help the applicant in the illicit business. Investigation also revealed an involvement of Accused No.7. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed. The trial Court declined to release the applicant on bail. 4. Ms. Shaikh, learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that, except statements of A1 to A3, there is no independent evidence showing that they used to procure the contraband from applicant. No contraband is recovered from the possession of the applicant. As such, the applicant is innocent. Although, there are 35 criminal antecedents against the applicant including 2 cases of consuming narcotic substance, 18 cases have already been disposed of, resulting in either acquittal or conviction on applicant’s pleading guilty. In the remaining cases, the applicant is on bail and intends to plead guilty. Therefore, she urged to release the applicant on bail. 5. In reply, Mr. Dedhia, the learned APP submitted that the material on record clearly show that the applicant used to procure the contraband substance and supply to A1 to A3 and thus, he was dealing in illicit business. Besides information given by the co- accused persons about involvement of the applicant, A1 to A3 stated that they procured the contraband from the applicant. Therefore, bail be refused. 6. I have considered these submissions. Record indicates that immediately after the arrest of A1 to A3, they named the applicant as the supplier of the contraband. Even, the wife of the applicant and co-accused – Rukshar stated that the applicant is involved in illicit business of contraband. Ms. Shaikh, the learned Advocate stated that Accused No.6 is not related to the applicant, yet, she has named him, alleging that, she used to supply Heroin to him. No doubt, said statements are not admissible in evidence. However, the H.C.SHIV 918.BA1432.26.DOC CDRs of the mobile phone of the applicant and Accused No.3 – Nisar Khan show that the two were in constant contact with each other around the date of arrest of Accused Nos.1 to 3 and seizure of the contraband from their possession. There is nothing on record to suggest that the applicant was carrying on some business for the livelihood of his family. More than 10 cases are still pending against the applicant. Record indicates that, although the applicant was externed, frequently, he committed breach of the Order and entered in the area from which he was externed. These circumstances clearly indicate that the applicant is involved in the aforesaid crime and he has scant regard for the law. 7. In view thereof, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. Hence, the application is rejected. 8. It is clarified that any observation made in the present order are for the purpose of deciding the present Bail application and should not influence the out come of the trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 9. Bail application stands disposed of in aforesaid terms. (SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)