Thorat, arrested on December 9, had alleged that he was denied access to crucial documents, including the memo of arrest and statements recorded by the NCB.
![[NDPS ACT] Bombay HC Orders NCB to Provide Investigation Documents in Vedish Thorat Drug Case](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Drugs.jpg?resize=800%2C450&ssl=1)
Bombay: Following a directive from the Bombay High Court, the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) has handed over investigation documents to Vedish Thorat, a photographer arrested in connection with a drug case.
Thorat, arrested on December 9, had alleged that he was denied access to crucial documents, including the memo of arrest and statements recorded by the NCB.
BRIEF FACTS
The allegations against Thorat include cultivating hydroponic weed at his Mumbai apartment and receiving a parcel containing 1.23 grams of mescaline—a drug derived from cactus, popular in western countries and reportedly being smuggled into India. This marked the NCB’s first reported seizure of mescaline in Mumbai. During a search, officials reportedly confiscated approximately 489 grams of hydroponic weed from Thorat’s residence.
A High Court bench comprising Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and MM Sathaye instructed the NCB to provide Thorat with the memo of arrest and the statements recorded under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.
Thorat’s lawyer, Prashant Trivedi, had filed a petition alleging procedural lapses and constitutional violations, citing the denial of these documents as a hindrance to Thorat’s ability to seek bail and prepare his defense.
The prosecution claimed that Thorat, a Mulund resident, was apprehended after accepting a parcel containing contraband from Guwahati based on a tip-off. Following his arrest, Thorat was initially remanded for two days and subsequently placed in judicial custody, which has been extended until January 3, 2025.
Trivedi argued that repeated requests for certified copies of investigation papers were denied by the court and NCB officials, violating legal precedents and procedural fairness. The petition emphasized that withholding such documents undermines an accused’s right to a fair trial and urged the issuance of a circular mandating compliance with established guidelines.