The Gujarat High Court has dismissed the fourth bail petition of a man accused of transporting commercial quantities of Mephedrone, ruling that an accused cannot exploit trial delays to secure release when the defense itself contributed to the stalling of proceedings.
In an order issued on September 2, Justice Hasmukh D Suthar observed that procedural delay in a trial cannot serve as an automatic remedy for individuals facing grave criminal allegations. Emphasizing that no litigant has the right to manipulate the judicial process or benefit from their own lapses, the bench held that statutory bail restrictions under narcotics law remain paramount.
The court directed the trial court to conclude the proceedings within 10 weeks, instructing both the prosecution and the defense to extend full cooperation, including the use of virtual appearances if required.
Defense Caused Procedural Delays
The applicant, Badrudin Bangdiwala, has been detained since March 2024 under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act following a First Information Report registered in Surat.
Bangdiwala’s legal counsel, Advocates Zubin Bharda and Kishan Daiya, sought bail on the grounds that their client had spent more than two years behind bars without meaningful progress in his trial. The defense also stressed that law enforcement officers found no narcotics directly on Bangdiwala’s person.
However, judicial records examined by the High Court told a different story regarding the pace of the proceedings. A status report submitted by the 11th Additional Sessions Judge in Surat revealed that the accused individuals were primarily responsible for the prolonged timeline. Bangdiwala did not appoint an advocate until December 3, 2024—nine months after his initial arrest—while a co-accused secured representation only on January 30, 2025. Subsequently, the defendants submitted multiple separate discharge pleas between February and May 2025, further halting the trial’s momentum.
Conscious Possession and Statutory Bars
Additional Public Prosecutor Vrunda Shah, appearing for the state government, opposed the application, pointing out that this was Bangdiwala’s fourth successive bail plea filed without any change in circumstances. The prosecution submitted that Bangdiwala drove his personal car to transport the contraband from Madhya Pradesh and maintained direct communication with both the supplier and the scheduled recipient.
Addressing the defense’s claim regarding the lack of physical recovery, Justice Suthar held that Bangdiwala remained in conscious possession of the illicit substance under the NDPS Act. The court highlighted that he owned and operated the vehicle used during the interstate trip to collect the narcotics.
The court noted that the case involves a commercial quantity of narcotics, bringing it squarely under the stringent mandates of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, where withholding bail remains the standard and granting it is an exception. Referencing Supreme Court precedents, the bench stated that the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21 cannot supersede the mandatory twin conditions required for bail under Section 37.
Seizure Details and Parity Rejected
The prosecution’s case stems from an interception near the Bhatiya Check Post, where an enforcement team acting on intelligence stopped a silver Hyundai Verna in the presence of independent witnesses. Authorities found three individuals in the vehicle returning from Madhya Pradesh and seized 512.2 grams of Mephedrone, valued at Rs 51.22 lakh, from two occupants.
Bangdiwala is designated as the primary accused in the FIR. The alleged supplier, identified as Iliyas alias Ilu Abdul Hanif alias Annubhai Abdul Hamid Shah, continues to evade arrest.
The bench firmly rejected Bangdiwala’s plea for parity with a co-accused who had earlier secured bail from a coordinate bench. Justice Suthar observed that the order releasing the co-accused did not record satisfaction of the statutory criteria under Section 37. Furthermore, the court determined that Bangdiwala’s alleged operational role in ferrying the contraband stood on a substantially graver footing, warranting continued judicial custody.
