GANESHBHAI RAGHUNATH INDREKARversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

   R/CR.MA/11698/2026                             ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026




IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
   R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER
                CHARGESHEET) NO. 11698 of 2026
==========================================================
               GANESHBHAI RAGHUNATH INDREKAR
                              Versus
                   STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SIKANDER SAIYED(3458) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS ZAINAB SIKANDER SAIYED(18345) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS VRUNDA SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                            Date : 30/07/2026
                                 ORDER

         RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for and on
behalf of the respondent – State of Gujarat.

[1.0] The present bail application is filed under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for regular
bail in connection with complaint being CR No.11191011260015 of
2026 registered with DCB Police Station, Ahmedabad City for the
offence under Sections 8(C), 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as “NDPS
Act”).

[2.0] Heard learned advocate for the applicant and learned APP for
respondent – State of Gujarat.

[3.0] The case of the prosecution is that on 17.01.2026 at around
21.30 hours, Police Inspector Mr. D.P. Unadkat alongwith two
government panchas and police staff personnel conducted raid in the



                                 Page 1 of 12
   R/CR.MA/11698/2026                              ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026




verandah (Osari) of the house of the accused No.1 and caught her red-
handed with conscious possession of 20 Kg 100 Grams of Ganja worth
Rs.10,05,000/- and it is alleged that the present applicant is the real
brother of accused No.1 who was caught red-handed with the above
Ganja quantity and it is also alleged that applicant used to go to
Nandurbar to bring the Ganja quantity while at times not arrested
accused Nos.2 and 3 both come and deliver the Ganja quantity in
Gujarat which was being sold by the present applicant in wholesale in
Chharanagar area of Ahmedabad. Thus, all the accused in collusion and
connivance of each other are involved in the offence.

[4.0] Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the
applicant is arrested on 17.01.2026 and is languishing in jail since then.
He has further submitted that trial may take long time to conclude
and has requested for bail on the ground of delay in trial. He has also
argued that the applicant is arraigned as an accused on the basis of
statement of co-accused and nothing is required to be recovered or
discovered from the present applicant. He has therefore submitted
that conclusion of trial will obviously take considerable time and
therefore, he has requested to grant bail to the applicant as he is
falsely implicated in the offence and for the same act, two FIRs have
been registered.

[5.0] Learned APP has vehemently opposed the present application
on the ground that during the investigation sufficient material is
collected against the present applicant. He has further submitted that
based on specific intelligence, raid was conducted and real sister of
the present applicant is found with conscious possession of 20 Kg 100
Grams of Ganja, which is more than commercial quantity and
therefore, rigors of section 37 of the NDPS Act would be applicable.


                                Page 2 of 12
   R/CR.MA/11698/2026                             ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026




He has also argued that statements of witnesses have been recorded
which corroborate the case of prosecution and involvement of present
applicant in trafficking of the narcotic drugs. It is submitted that
present applicant is having past antecedent of similar nature and still
he has indulged in similar illegal activity and therefore, considering
rigors of section 37 of the NDPS Act, applicant is not entitled to any
relief from this Court. He has also argued that if the applicant is
released on bail, possibility of tampering with evidence and flight risk
of the applicant cannot be ruled out. So far as ground of delay in trial
urged on behalf of the applicant is concerned, he has submitted that
prosecution is ready and willing to examine witnesses on day to day
basis for expeditious disposal of the trial. He has therefore submitted
to dismiss the present application.

[6.0] Perusing the investigation papers and charge-sheet papers, it
appears that on 17.01.2026 at around 21.30 hours, Police Inspector
Mr. D.P. Unadkat alongwith two government panchas and police staff
personnel conducted raid in the verandah (Osari) of the house of the
accused No.1 and caught her red-handed with conscious possession of
20 Kg 100 Grams of Ganja worth Rs.10,05,000/- and it is alleged that
the present applicant is the real brother of accused No.1 who was
caught red-handed with the above Ganja quantity and it is also alleged
that applicant used to go to Nandurbar to bring the Ganja quantity
while at times accused Nos.2 and 3 both, who are yet to be arrested,
come and deliver the Ganja quantity in Gujarat which was being sold
by the present applicant in wholesale in Chharanagar area of
Ahmedabad. Thus, the quantity involved in the present offence is 20
Kg 100 Grams of Ganja, which is obviously commercial quantity of
prohibited narcotic drug and therefore, rigors of section 37 of the
NDPS Act is applicable. Prima facie involvement of applicant is found


                               Page 3 of 12
   R/CR.MA/11698/2026                                ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026




on the basis of sufficient material collected during investigation.
Sufficient material and evidence has been collected by the
investigating agency to establish that the present applicant used to
sell the said contraband in Ahmedabad. One more aspect is required
to be considered that the recovered contraband Ganja is of
commercial quantity. Hence, rigors of Section 37 of the Act would be
applicable and therefore, applicant is facing serious charge under
Section 29 of the NDPS Act. Further, considering the rigors of section
37 of the NDPS Act, it is mandatory requirement to adhere to the
statutory requirement while granting bail in the case of commercial
quantity under the NDPS Act. Herein, in the case on hand, though the
contraband is not found from the conscious possession of the
applicant, muddamal was recovered from the conscious possession of
the real sister of the present applicant and hence, rigors of section 37
of the NDPS Act would be applicable in view of the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Meghalaya vs.
Lalrintluanga Sailo and Another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine (SC)
1751. Hence, it reveals from the investigation papers that there is live
link of the present applicant with the drug peddler and the persons
who are indulged in drug trafficking. Hence, the argument canvassed
by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicant that rigors
of section 37 of the NDPS Act will not be applicable, is not acceptable
and there is substance in argument canvassed by the learned APP.

[6.1] One more aspect which is required to be considered is that
learned advocate for the applicant has argued and sought bail on the
ground of delay in trial. It is needless to say that delay in trial is not a
panacea everytime to get rid of custody and to continue such illegal
activity more especially when rigors of section 37 of the NDPS Act is
applicable and possibility to indulge in similar activities again since the


                                 Page 4 of 12
   R/CR.MA/11698/2026                              ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026




applicant is having similar nature of past antecedents and he has
misused his liberty. Insofar as the submission made on behalf of the
applicant that the trial will take considerable time and therefore,
applicant is entitled to bail considering concept of personal liberty
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is concerned, it is true
that accused has right to speedy trial in case of ordinate delay in trial
since it amounts to violation of fundamental right of an accused and
this Court has also considered the said fact in many cases but herein
argument canvassed by learned Advocate for the applicant is not
accepted as the applicant is arrested on 17.01.2026 and has remained
in judicial custody approximately for 6 months which includes the
statutory period i.e. investigation, right to get copies of documents,
statutory period for filing of a discharge application, which is followed
by pre-cognizance hearing under Section 223(1) of the BNSS. Further,
in view of Sections 29 and 37 of the NDPS Act and having regard to
the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of
Punjab v. Balraj Singh @ Billa reported in 2026 INSC 618, mere delay
in trial cannot by itself be a ground for granting bail when the offence
involves commercial quantity and the prima facie involvement of the
accused is evident from the record. At this stage, it is also appropriate
to refer to the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of State of Punjab v. Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora [2026 INSC
401], wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled that the right to a
speedy trial under Article 21 cannot bypass the strict statutory
requirements of Section 37 for commercial drug quantities.

[6.2] Another argument canvassed by the learned advocate for the
applicant is that applicant is falsely enroped in the offence since
earlier one offence was registered and subsequently, as an off-shoot
of the said offence, conducting the raid at the house of sister of


                                Page 5 of 12
   R/CR.MA/11698/2026                            ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026




present applicant, applicant is enroped in second offence. Perusing
the record, it appears that first offence was registered with
Ahmedabad Railway Police Station in the morning and it was
independent offence while present offence is registered by the DCB
Police Station and during the raid at the house of accused No.1, who
happens to be the real sister of the present applicant and the present
applicant had supplied the contraband and used to supply the said
contraband and thereafter packing in small packages, applicant used
to further sell the contraband. Thus, the applicant is the supplier and
hatching conspiracy with his sister, the applicant has engaged in drug
trafficking activity. Both the offences and quantity of contraband
involved in both the offences is different and real sister of the
applicant is found in conscious possession of the contraband and thus,
the applicant was having the knowledge about the said contraband
which clearly reveals his knowledge and animus as discussed in the
case of Union of India v. Nawaz Khan reported in (2021) 10 SCC 100
(3 Judges’ Bench), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
elaborately discussed the test which the High Court should adopt
while granting bail, “reasonable grounds to believe”, “conscious
possession” of contraband and principles for ascertaining the same
have been summarized. Merely the contraband was not in conscious
possession of present applicant does not absolve him of the level of
scrutiny required under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act. The term
“possession” could mean “physical possession” with animus; custody
over the prohibited substances with animus; exercise of dominion and
control as a result of concealment; or personal knowledge as to the
existence of the contraband and the intention based on such
knowledge. Herein, applicant was supplying the contraband Ganja and
he was in touch with the co-accused. Hence, another raid may be



                               Page 6 of 12
   R/CR.MA/11698/2026                                       ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026




coincidence but it cannot be termed as sameness of offence. In
another offence, present applicant is released on bail is not a ground
to release the applicant on bail in the present offence also considering
the role attributed to the present applicant. Once present applicant
continuously indulges in such illegal drug trafficking activity and
misused his liberty, he cannot claim liberty as an absolutism as of right
at the cost of larger public interest.

[6.3] Even in offence under IPC also, to use the discretion in favor of
an accused to release him on bail, triple test is required to be satisfied
considering the flight risk, tampering with evidence and possibility to
stand to trial. Hence, possibility that applicant may flee from justice
cannot be ruled out. Herein, thought the applicant is not found in
conscious possession of the contraband but he was actively involved
in the offence in collusion with his real sister who is caught red-
handed with conscious possession of prohibited contraband that too
in commercial quantity and therefore, if the accused abets an offence,
then in aid of section 29(2) of the NDPS Act, clubbing of the said
contraband is permissible though obviously it is a subject of trial but
this Court is of prima facie considered view that present is a case of
commercial quantity and hence, rigors of section 37 of the NDPS Act
would be applicable, as the applicant facing charge under Section 29
of the NDPS Act, which reads as under.
      “29. Punishment for abetment and criminal conspiracy.
      (1) Whoever abets, or is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit, an offence
      punishable under this Chapter, shall, whether such offence be or be not
      committed in consequence of such abetment or in pursuance of such criminal
      conspiracy, and notwithstanding anything contained in section 116 of the
      Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), be punishable with the punishment provided
      for the offence.

      (2) A person abets, or is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit, an offence,
      within the meaning of this section, who, in India, abets or is a party to the
      criminal conspiracy to the commission of any act in a place without and
      beyond India which--


                                     Page 7 of 12
   R/CR.MA/11698/2026                                      ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026




      (a) would constitute an offence if committed within India; or

      (b) under the laws of such place, is an offence relating to narcotic drugs or
      psychotropic substances having all the legal conditions required to constitute
      it such an offence the same as or analogous to the legal conditions required to
      constitute it an offence punishable under this Chapter, if committed within
      India.”

[7.0] A Liberal approach in the matter of bail under the NDPS Act is
uncalled for. Section 37 of the NDPS Act starts with a non- obstante
clause and therefore, the provisions of Section 437/439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure would not be applicable with regard to a person
accused of an offence punishable under Section 19 or Section 24 or
Section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity of
contraband. The words "reasonable grounds" also appear in clause (i)
of Section 437 of Cr.P.C. but the authority given to a High Court or a
Court of Session under clause (a) of Section 439 permitting release on
bail of any person accused of an offence would be curtailed in view of
the stringent provision of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act.

[7.1] The limitations prescribed under the NDPS Act on granting of
bail are in addition to the limitations under Cr.P.C. or any other law for
the time being in force. It is further contended that while considering
an application for bail with reference to Section 37 of the NDPS Act,
the Court is not called upon to record a finding of not guilty. With
reference to the phrase "reasonable grounds for believing".

[7.2] Moreover, other aspect to be borne in mind is that the liberty of
a citizen has got to be balanced with the interest of the society. In
cases where narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances are involved,
the accused would indulge in activities which are lethal to the society.
Therefore, it would certainly be in the interest of the society to keep
such persons behind bars during the pendency of the proceedings



                                    Page 8 of 12
   R/CR.MA/11698/2026                              ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026




before the court that the organized activities of the underworld and
the clandestine smuggling of narcotic drugs and psychotropic
substances into this country and illegal trafficking in such drugs and
substances have led to drug addiction among a sizeable section of the
public, particularly the adolescents and students of both sexes and the
menace has assumed serious and alarming proportions in the recent
years.

[7.3] The seriousness of cases under the NDPS Act have to be viewed
like this that in a murder case, the accused commits murder of one or
two persons, while those persons who are dealing in narcotic drugs
are instrumental in causing death or in inflicting death-blow to a
number of innocent young victims, who are vulnerable: it causes
deleterious effects and deadly impact on the society,that the
organised activities of the underworld and the clandestine smuggling
of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances into this country and
illegal trafficking in such drugs and substances have led to drug
addiction among a sizeable section of the public, particularly the
adolescents and students of both sexes and the menace has assumed
serious and alarming proportions in the recent years. Therefore, in
order to effectively control and eradicate this proliferating and
booming devastating menace, causing deleterious effects and deadly
impact on the society as a whole, the Parliament in its wisdom, has
made effective provisions by introducing this Special provisions under
the Act.

[7.4] The Court while considering the application for bail with
reference to Section 37 of the Act is not called upon to record a
finding of not guilty. It is for the limited purpose essentially confined
to the question of releasing the accused on bail that the Court is


                                Page 9 of 12
   R/CR.MA/11698/2026                                        ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026




called upon to see if there are reasonable grounds for believing that
the accused is not guilty and records its satisfaction about the
existence of such grounds. But the Court has not to consider the
matter as if it is pronouncing a judgment of acquittal and recording a
finding of not guilty. in the case of Babua v. State of Orissa, Hon'ble
Apex Court has been pleased to held that:
    "3. In view of Section 37(1)(b) of the Act unless there are reasonable grounds for
    believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely
    to commit any offence while on bail alone will entitle him to a bail. In the
    present case, the petitioner attempted to secure bail on various grounds but
    failed. But those reasons would be insignificant if we bear in mind the scope of
    Section 37(1)(b) of the Act. At this stage of the case all that could be seen is
    whether the statements made on behalf of the prosecution witnesses, if
    believable, would result in conviction of the petitioner or not. At this juncture,
    we cannot say that the accused is not guilty of the offence if the allegations
    made in the charge are established. Nor can we say that the evidence having not
    been completely adduced before the Court that there are no grounds to hold
    that he is not guilty of such offence. The other aspect to be borne in mind is that
    the liberty of a citizen has got to be balanced with the interest of the society. In
    cases where narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances are involved, the
    accused would indulge in activities which are lethal to the society. Therefore, it
    would certainly be in the interest of the society to keep such persons behind bars
    during the pendency of the proceedings before the court, and the validity of
    Section 37(1)(b) having been upheld, we cannot take any other view."


[7.5] Considering the provisions of Section 37, limitation of grant of
bail under Section 37(b)(i) of the NDPS Act where there are reasonable
ground for pleading that the applicant is not guilty of such offence
and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

[7.6] Considering the aforesaid provisions, as the applicant is having
past antecedent of similar nature of offence under the NDPS Act and
considering the rigors of Section 37 (b)(ii) of the Act, possibility cannot
be ruled out to indulge again in such type of serious offence if he is
released on bail.

[8.0] Further, in the present case, considering the rigors of section 37
of the NDPS Act and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court


                                     Page 10 of 12
   R/CR.MA/11698/2026                                       ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026




in the case of Bhawani Singh vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2022
SCC OnLine SC 1991, Mayur Jamanbhai Ajani Vs. State of Gujarat,
[SLP (Cri.) No.302/2025], as well as in the case of Lalrintluanga Sailo
and Another (Supra), the applicant is not entitled to any relief from
this Court. Further, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in case of State of Kerala Vs. Rajesh, Criminal Appeal No.154-
157 of 2020, as the recovered contraband Ganja is of commercial
quantity, rigors of Section 37 of the Act would be applicable.

[8.1] It is apt to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu & anr,
reported in 2012 (9) SCC 446 wherein, it has been held that the
concept of liberty is not in the realm of absolutism but is restricted.
[8.2] Further, in the case of CBI vs. V. Vijay Sai Reddy reported in
(2013)7 SCC 452, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in paragraph
34 as under:
      “34. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of
      accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the
      punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused,
      circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of
      securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of
      the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and
      other similar considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose
      of granting bail, the Legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for
      believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the Court dealing with the
      grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against
      the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie
      evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the
      evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.”

[9.0] In view of the above, there being no merits in the present
application, same is hereby dismissed. However, learned trial Court is
directed to expedite the trial. It is made clear that the observations
made in the present order are tentative in nature and the learned trial
Court shall decide the case of the applicant on its own merits without
being influenced by the observations made in the present order.


                                    Page 11 of 12
       R/CR.MA/11698/2026                                                        ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026




[10.0] Learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as early as
possible since the applicant is an under-trial prisoner. If the co-accused
are absconding then the learned trial Court shall separate the trial of
such co-accused and the applicant shall also cooperate the learned
trial Court in early disposal of the trial. If the applicant fails to engage
an Advocate, the trial Court shall appoint an advocate for the accused
through District Legal Services Authority / office of Chief Legal Aid
Defence Counsel.

[11.0] It is made clear that the observations made in the present order
are tentative in nature and the learned trial Court shall decide the
case of the applicant independently on its own merits without being
influenced by the observations made in the present order. Rule is
discharged.



                                                                   (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.)

Ajay
 Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
 Digitally signed by: AJAY CHANDRAN MENON(HC00939), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 30/07/2026 14:30:17




                                                  Page 12 of 12