The accused were arrested in relation to C.R. No. I-41 of 2023, initially registered as FIR No. 0330 of 2023 at Vakola Police Station, Mumbai. The charges against them include offences under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 385, and 201 of the IPC, as well as various provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. The allegations revolve around a conspiracy in which the applicants are said to have planted a small quantity of Ganja (500 grams) in a trophy and handed it over to the daughter of the informant. She was led to believe that she was being sent to Dubai for an audition, but upon reaching Sharjah, it became evident that she had been deceived. The fabricated return tickets allegedly led to the registration of offences against the two applicants.

The applicants, having spent approximately one year and five months in jail, moved the court seeking bail. Their legal counsel argued that the charges against them, particularly under the NDPS Act, pertain to a small quantity of Ganja, which attracts a maximum punishment of up to three years. Additionally, the defence highlighted that the NDPS Special Judge, in a November 2023 ruling, had already decided that the case would be tried by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, indicating that the offences were not of a grave nature and could be adjudicated at the Magistrate’s level.

The defence also cited a recent Supreme Court ruling (in the case of Abdulmajid Abdulsattar Memon Vs. State of Gujarat) where bail was granted to an accused who had been in jail for about one year and three months for similar charges that were triable by a Magistrate. The Court took note of the delays in the trial and decided that there was no point in keeping the accused in custody without a charge being framed, especially when the trial was unlikely to progress anytime soon.

On the other hand, the prosecution opposed the bail application, arguing that the applicants' modus operandi, which involved deceiving the daughter of the informant and trafficking in narcotics, was serious in nature and warranted continued incarceration. The prosecution highlighted that the applicants had used the daughter of the informant as a pawn in their scheme to settle personal scores with the informant.

However, the court found that the alleged offences under the IPC and NDPS Act involved relatively minor quantities of narcotic substances and the punishments for such offences did not exceed three years in jail. Moreover, the trial was yet to begin, with charges not even framed against the applicants, and no significant progress had been made in the proceedings.

Considering the factors, including the length of time already spent in jail and the fact that the trial was delayed, the court ruled in favour of bail. The conditions of the bail include:

The applicants must furnish a PR Bond of ?50,000 each with one or two sureties.

They are required to report to the DCB CID Unit 10 on the first Monday of every month.

The applicants are also required to surrender their passports and provide their contact numbers and residential addresses to the trial court, with an obligation to update any changes.

They must cooperate with the trial and attend every hearing, unless exempted.

The court also warned that violation of any of these conditions could lead to bail cancellation.

The court emphasized that the ruling was limited to the bail application and would not influence the merits of the trial. The applicants' continued incarceration, in light of the small quantity of narcotics involved and the lengthy delay in trial, was deemed unnecessary. This decision brings relief to the applicants, who can now await their trial outside jail, under the conditions set by the court.