PANAJI
A series of phone calls before a 1.580-kg ganja seizure and the accused’s previous NDPS cases brought a Colvale resident closer to custodial interrogation, with Fast Track Court rejecting his plea for protection from arrest in the drug case.
Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Reina Fernandes rejected anticipatory bail to 28-year-old Vijay Volvoikar, holding that call records showed repeated communication with the arrested co-accused before the alleged drug offence.
“The material regarding the applicant’s communication with the co-accused preceding the offence and the criminal antecedents of the applicant, the application is not entitled to pre-arrest bail. The presence of the applicant is required in custody for effective investigation,” reads the order pronounced on Thursday.
According to the prosecution, Saish Sawant was arrested on August 19 after police found him in alleged possession of 1.580 kg of suspected ganja, worth Rs 1.60 lakh. During interrogation, Sawant allegedly disclosed that he had procured the substance from Volvoikar, following which Section 29 of the NDPS Act was added to the case.
The prosecution further relied on call detail records, stating that Sawant and Volvoikar were in constant contact and had several communications before the alleged offence. The court noted that the material, at this stage, prima facie indicated an association between the two before the offence and warranted further investigation into the nature and purpose of their communication.
Volvoikar’s lawyer R Naik argued that his client was sought to be arrested primarily based on the co-accused’s statement, which, he contended, had no evidentiary value to justify arrest.
“...the statement of the co-accused has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law and no person can be arrested merely on the basis of such a statement... The applicant has no nexus with the co-accused. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to pre-arrest bail,” Naik submitted during the hearing.
The prosecution opposed the application, submitting that custodial interrogation was necessary to unearth the alleged conspiracy, and pointed to Volvoikar’s past NDPS cases. The court recorded that in one earlier case he was on bail, while in another he had been discharged, but held that the antecedents remained a relevant circumstance while considering the present NDPS application.
Considering the nature of the allegations, the court concluded that Volvoikar’s presence in custody was required for effective investigation and rejected his anticipatory bail plea.
