Bombay HC Grants Bail to 50-Year-Old Due to Lack of Evidence in ₹1,000 Crore NDPS Case

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court granted bail to 50-year-old Kondiba Gunjal, citing insufficient evidence and long imprisonment without progress in trial, in a case involving the seizure of 191.60 kg of heroin worth nearly Rs 1,000 million. Judge Bharat Deshpande allowed Gunjal’s bail application with stringent conditions, including a personal surety of Rs 1 lakh.

Gunjal, a clearing agent and partner at M/s MB Transport and Logistics Services, was arrested on August 9, 2021, for her alleged involvement in facilitating the clearance of a consignment concealing narcotics. Gunjal’s lawyer, Sujay Kantawala, argued that his client had no knowledge of the contraband and was merely performing his duties as a clearing agent.

The prosecution relied primarily on the statements recorded under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The consignment, imported under the name M/s Sarvim Exports, was seized by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) in 2020. Searches revealed heroin hidden inside wooden structures and the suspect was arrested.

Advocate Ruju Thakker, who appeared for the prosecution, argued that the call records and WhatsApp chats were linked to Gunjal’s consent to dispatch and claimed that she was in regular contact with other accused, including her cousin and business partner Meenanath Bodke, who was arrested as the accused. 1.

Justice Bharat Deshpande observed that apart from the statements under Section 67, there was no corroborating evidence to show that Gunjal was involved in drug trafficking. Referring to the Supreme Court Order, the HC said that “the statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offense under the provisions of the NDPS Act.”

He noted that Gunjal’s business activities naturally entailed interaction with other defendants and processing of shipping documents. Moreover, the amounts he received for collection of the shipment were nominal and not indicative of illegal transactions.

“Records show that the present Applicant (Gunjal) and Accused No. 1 are partners in a firm that deals with customs clearance of consignments. It is also claimed that…(they)…are related to each other. In such a situation, telephone conversations between Defendants 1 and 2 are natural in terms of both personal and business transactions,” said Justice Deshnpande.

Emphasizing that Gunjal was detained for three years and that no progress was made in the case, and that the prosecution listed 54 witnesses, the court emphasized her right to a speedy trial. The HC granted him bail on provision of personal bond of Rs 1 lakh.