Published On: January 27, 2022 at 12:37 IST
Last week, a Special Court in Mumbai rejected the Bail application filed by Zaid Rana, an Accused under the Narcotics Control and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. Earlier, he had made allegations against the former Zonal Director of Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) Sameer Wankhede for the alleged Fabrication of Evidence.
NCB had seized 1.32 grams of LSD, 22 grams of Ganja, one capsule of an unknown psychotropic substance, and one dab of Cannabis from 20-year-old Accused Zaid Rana’s house in Mumbai.
Rana, in his Bail application, had contended that Wankhede had planted alleged recovery in his house because there was animosity between his parents and Wankhede’s tenant who were neighbours.
Advocate Ashok Saraogi appearing for Rana contended that at the time of the alleged house search, Rana was not present. He was later on called by his father and told that he was a youngster and deserved one more opportunity. Further, the Chargesheet and commercial analysis report were filed and nothing incriminating could be found against Rana, nor did it indicate any connection with co-accused. Advocate Saraogi also contended that the panch-witnesses in the present Case were the same as those in Aryan Khan’s drug case, but following the controversy, the witnesses had been changed with a false report.
On the other hand, Special Public Prosecutor Advait Sethna contended that whatever Rana had stated was a “ploy to completely mislead and prejudice the Court” and that the present allegations against Wankhede came belatedly, after over a period of 7 months from the date of the alleged planting of the contraband. Therefore, he sought the rejection of the Bail application.
Special Judge AA Joglekar, hearing the matter, observed that there were telephonic communications between the co-accused and Rana, and in view of the fact that commercial quantity had been recovered from Rana, his complexity in the crime could not be negated.
The Order read, “…the prima-facie material shows for such transaction pertaining to the illicit drug trafficking during the course of the investigation. So in the said scenario, it is evident that the applicant/accused cannot be extended with the relief of enlargement on bail”.