11 July 2024 Bail and Antcipatory Bail >> Criminal Law   |   Criminal Appeals & Suspension of Sentence >> Criminal Law  

In a significant legal development, the High Court has granted bail to Parvez Vaid and Faiz Shakeel Bhiwandiwala, who were previously denied bail in connection with a high-profile case involving terrorism and drug-related charges.

Background:

The case of Parvez Zubair Vaid & Another v/s The State of Maharashtra, through ACP, Mumbai & Another, involves serious allegations against the two appellants under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) and the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The charges against Parvez Vaid (Accused No. 1) and Faiz Shakeel Bhiwandiwala (Accused No. 2) include violations of Sections 17, 18, and 20 of UAPA, and Sections 8C, 20, and 29 of the NDPS Act, as well as sections of the Indian Penal Code related to terrorism and criminal conspiracy.

Arguments for Bail:

Represented by senior counsels Mihir Desai and Rishi Bhuta, the appellants argued that the charge-sheet presented by the prosecution did not contain sufficient evidence to support the serious charges, particularly under the stringent UAPA and NDPS Act. The counsels highlighted that there was no direct evidence linking Vaid and Bhiwandiwala to the alleged terrorist activities or significant drug offenses.

For Parvez Vaid, it was asserted that no contraband was recovered from him, and his detention was claimed to have been illegal. Faiz Shakeel Bhiwandiwala, the second appellant, was found to have had 600 grams of ganja in his possession, which is categorized as a small quantity under the NDPS Act and does not warrant incarceration under the provisions of the Act for commercial or intermediate quantities.

Court’s Decision:

The court, after reviewing the charge-sheet and related documents, acknowledged the absence of substantive evidence supporting the charges under Sections 17 and 18 of the UAPA. The Public Prosecutor admitted that these sections could not be substantiated with the available material.

Regarding Section 20 of UAPA, which concerns membership in a terrorist gang or organization, the court found the evidence insufficient to link Parvez Vaid to a terrorist organization. The designation of Dawood Ibrahim as a terrorist did not automatically implicate Vaid under this section, especially given the lack of concrete evidence directly connecting him to terrorist activities. For the NDPS Act charges, the court noted that the amount of ganja seized from Bhiwandiwala was relatively small and did not meet the criteria for serious drug trafficking offenses. Consequently, the court ruled that the denial of bail in his case was not justified.

Bail Conditions:

The court’s decision allows both appellants to be released on bail with the following conditions:

• Bail Bond: Each appellant must furnish a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one or more sureties of the same amount.
• Attendance: They must mark their attendance at the Anti Terrorist Squad (ATS) police station in Kalachowki on the first Monday of every month.
• Contact Information: The appellants are required to provide their current address and contact details and update them if there are any changes.
• Travel Restrictions: They cannot travel outside the jurisdiction of the trial judge without prior permission and must deposit their passports with the Investigating Officer if applicable.
• Witness Interference: The appellants are prohibited from influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence.

Conclusion:

The court’s decision to grant bail marks a critical juncture in this high-profile case, emphasizing the necessity for substantial evidence in serious charges. The appellants, now granted bail under strict conditions, await further proceedings in their case. 

  Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967    Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985    Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Ac, 1987 Indian Penal Code, 1860