The Supreme Court has protected a woman who, along with her 18-year-old son and husband, is accused in a drugs case from arrest even though the Bombay High Court found no case for anticipatory bail.
A Bench headed by Justice A.S. Oka ordered the Maharashtra Police to not arrest Bashira Firoz Shaikh in connection with a case registered in Pune in July under the various provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance (NDPS) Act against her family and a fourth man.
The fourth man in question, Sachin Yadav Adagale, was caught with 90 gm of ganja in his possession. He had led the police to the Shaikh couple and their son.
Ms. Bashira, represented by advocates Sana Raees Khan and Thomas Oommen, and her co-accused have been accused of offences, including produce, manufacture, possess, sell, etc, of narcotic drug or psychotropic substance; abetment of criminal conspiracy to commit an offence under the NDPS Act.
The apex court issued notice to the State of Maharashtra on September 30 and made it returnable on November 11. The Bench underscored that protection from arrest was subject to Bashira’s cooperation in the investigation.
Bashira’s argument
In August, Bashira and her son, Sahil, had argued for pre-arrest bail in the High Court on various grounds, including that they had no criminal antecedents, and that she was a woman and he was only 18 years old.
They had contended that the only material against them was a statement given by Mr. Adagale, who was a co-accused.
The prosecution had successfully objected to the plea for anticipatory bail, saying Ms. Bashira had a criminal record. The owner of a shed in which the contraband was recovered from had named the family. Besides, Bashira and her husband, Firoz, had a joint bank account in which credits related to drug money were made.
The High Court was also not swayed by their argument that the contraband recovered could not be classified as commercial quantity.
“Bashira Firoz Shaikh has two criminal antecedents. Although Sahil Firoz Shaikh is said to be a young boy of 18 years and does not have any criminal antecedents, prima facie, this court finds sufficient material to show his involvement, and in any case, this is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail,” the High Court had concluded in its August 14 order.
Published - October 02, 2024 08:16 pm IST
