The Bombay High Court has granted bail to Ellena Kasakatira, a foreign national arrested in November 2020 at Mumbai International Airport for alleged possession of commercial quantities of cocaine. Justice Manish Pitale, presiding over the case, raised significant doubts about the prosecution’s evidence, particularly the absence of Kasakatira’s signature on the crucial airport seizure panchanama.
Case Background
Ellena Kasakatira was intercepted by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) upon her arrival in Mumbai on November 23, 2020. Acting on a tip-off, authorities searched her belongings and reportedly found two packets, each containing 500 grams of cocaine, hidden in a blue trolley bag. Despite the severity of the charges under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, her legal team argued that the prosecution’s evidence had critical gaps.
Key Evidence Under Scrutiny
The High Court’s attention was drawn to inconsistencies in the documentation:
- Seizure Panchanama: The airport panchanama, documenting the seizure of the drugs, lacked Kasakatira’s signature.
- Section 50 NDPS Act Notice: A notice issued under Section 50 of the NDPS Act on the same day bore her signature, raising questions about why the crucial seizure document did not.
The court noted that this inconsistency could undermine the prosecution’s case.
Justice Pitale observed, “It is significant that the seizure panchanama at no place bears the signature of the accused, which raises doubts about the credibility of the prosecution’s claims.”
Reasons for Granting Bail
In addition to questioning the evidence, the Bombay High Court considered Kasakatira’s prolonged detention and lack of prior criminal record. She had been in custody for four years without a resolution to her case. The court acknowledged that this, coupled with the evidentiary lapse, justified bail.
Kasakatira was granted bail with a cash bond of ₹1 lakh.
Legal Implications
The ruling highlights the importance of strict adherence to procedural requirements under the NDPS Act. The absence of a signature on a pivotal document like the seizure panchanama could significantly weaken the prosecution’s case, potentially leading to an acquittal.
The judgment serves as a reminder of the critical role of due process in ensuring justice, particularly in cases involving severe penalties under the NDPS Act.
This development raises questions about procedural lapses in high-stakes cases and underscores the judiciary’s role in holding investigative agencies accountable.
