JUDGMENT : NEELA GOKHALE, J. 1. By this Application, the Applicant seeks his enlargement on bail in connection with Crime No. 496 of 2024 dated 16 th December 2024 registered with the Dongri Police Station, Mumbai for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 21(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’). 2. There are in all six accused persons and the Applicant is Accused No.6. The case of the prosecution, is that, the Police while on patrolling duty, apprehended Accused No.1, Imran Yakub Shaikh and arrested him on 17 th December 2024. 940 grams of Cocaine was recovered from the said Accused. The Applicant was implicated in the said offence since he is said to be a relative of the main accused and he was always seen in the company of the main accused and co-accused in the said offence. 3. The Applicant made an application seeking bail before the Special Judge (N.D.P.S.) City Civil & Sessions Court, Greater Bombay, however, by order dated 1 st December 2025, the same came to be rejected. Hence, the Applicant is before this Court for the reliefs as prayed. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the record with their assistance. 5. Mr. Dilip Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Applicant, submits that there is no recovery from the Applicant and only on the ground that the Applicant intermingles with the co-accused in the offence, he has also been implicated in the said offence. He submits that there are no antecedents against him. In these circumstances, Mr. Mishra, prays that the Applicant be released on bail. 6. Mr. Yogesh Dabke, learned APP representing the State in the matter, on the other hand, submits that there are statements of 2 witnesses, which corroborate prosecution’s case that the Applicant is associated with the co-accused and is always in their company. To this, Mr. Mishra interjects and states that the place at which the Applicant mingles with the co-accused is just outside the Applicant’s place of residence. Furthermore, Mr. Dabke submits that there is a possibility of some financial dealings between the co-accused and the Applicant. However, till date, the Police have not been able to obtain bank statements of the Applicant. Mishra interjects and states that the place at which the Applicant mingles with the co-accused is just outside the Applicant’s place of residence. Furthermore, Mr. Dabke submits that there is a possibility of some financial dealings between the co-accused and the Applicant. However, till date, the Police have not been able to obtain bank statements of the Applicant. He also submits that when the house of the Applicant was searched by the Police, a mobile phone was recovered from the said premises but it appears that the said mobile phone was completely formatted and no data could be recovered from the said phone. Mr. Dabke submits, the very fact that the Applicant had formatted his phone speaks volume for his complicity. He submits that the mobile phone has been sent for forensic analysis and the report is awaited. Mr. Dabke also submits that there is one antecedent against the Applicant pertaining to robbery. Mr. Mishra, however, rebuts this as well by saying that the person against whom the said case is filed, is not the Applicant. 7. Be that as it may, there is no recovery from the Applicant. Merely because the Applicant is stated to be associated or intermingling with the main accused or the co- accused in the said offence, his complicity in the offence, cannot be presumed. No financial transactions between the Applicant and the co-accused have yet been found by the Investigating Officer. Also the fact of formatting his mobile phone is not sufficient to justify incarceration of the Applicant. In view of the aforesaid, there is a reason to believe, at this stage, that the Applicant has not committed the said offence. 8. In these circumstances, I am inclined to enlarge the Applicant on bail. Also the fact of formatting his mobile phone is not sufficient to justify incarceration of the Applicant. In view of the aforesaid, there is a reason to believe, at this stage, that the Applicant has not committed the said offence. 8. In these circumstances, I am inclined to enlarge the Applicant on bail. It is accordingly ordered as under:- ORDER: i) The Applicant be enlarged on bail, on executing PR Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/ with one or two local sureties in the like amount; ii) The Applicant shall attend the Trial Court concerned on each and every date unless exempted by the orders of the Trial Court concerned; iii) The Applicant shall also attend the Police Station concerned once in a month between 11:00 a.m. to 02:00 p.m., till the charges are framed; iv) If the Applicant has not deposited his passport, if any, the Applicant shall deposit the same with the Police Station concerned; v) The Applicant shall not leave India, without the permission of the Trial Court; vi) The Applicant shall not tamper or attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case; vii) The Applicant shall inform his latest place of residence and contact number immediately after being released and / or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from time to time to the Court seized of the matter and to the Investigating Officer of the Police Station concerned; viii) The Applicant to co-operate with the conduct of the trial; ix) Any infraction of the aforesaid conditions shall entail cancellation of bail. 9. Application is allowed in the above terms and is accordingly disposed of. 10. It is made clear that the observations made herein are prima facie and are confined to this Application and the learned Trial Judge to decide the case on its own merits, uninfluenced by the observations made herein.