BHARATBHAI @ BHANO DAMJIBHAI LATHIYAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

   R/CR.MA/17451/2026                           ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026




IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
   R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER
               CHARGESHEET) NO. 17451 of 2026
==========================================================
            BHARATBHAI @ BHANO DAMJIBHAI LATHIYA
                              Versus
                       STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AJAY N PABARI(11379) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ADITYA JADEJA, 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.11210004260002 of
2026 registered with Amroli Police Station, Surat City for the
offence under Sections 8(C), 22(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 31.12.2025, the SOG
(Special Operations Group) received a specific tip-off regarding
narcotics activity and acting on the said information, a raid was
conducted near Ganeshnagar Row House, Chhapra Bhatha Road,
Amroli during which, the co-accused Jil Bhupatbhai Thummar was


                                 Page 1 of 14
      R/CR.MA/17451/2026                                   ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026




apprehended from the spot. Upon conducting a search, the police
recovered a prohibited psychotropic substance, namely Mephedrone
(MD Drugs), weighing 236.780 grams (valued at approximately
23,67,800/-) from the physical possession of the said co-accused.
During the on-the-spot interrogation and subsequent panchnama, the
co-accused Jil Thummar alleged that the seized contraband was
supplied to him on a commission basis by his friend, the present
applicant and his partner Khushal Ranpariya. It is the case of the
prosecution that the drug was delivered to the co-accused by the
present applicant for further distribution to an unknown person.
Consequently, the present applicant has been arrayed as an accused
on the grounds of criminal conspiracy under Section 29 of the NDPS
Act despite the fact that no narcotics were directly recovered from
the     applicant's        conscious   possession     during   the    raid.    After
investigation, charge-sheet is filed which culminated into Special
NDPS Case No.130/2026.

[4.0] Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the
applicant is arrested on 09.01.2026 and is languishing in jail since then.
He has further submitted that the applicant is not found in conscious
possession of the contraband and is arraigned only on the basis of the
statement of co-accused who was arrested at the time of raid. He has
also argued that there is no any banking transaction however, only an
amount of Rs.46,686/- was transferred by the co-accused to the
account of the present applicant over a prolonged period ranging
from 30.10.2024 to 17.08.2025 however, there is no direct or indirect
role, nexus or recovery of any contraband from the present applicant.
He has also submitted that even from the statement of eye-witness
and charge-sheet, no prima facie role of the applicant is revealed. It is
further submitted that the applicant is not having any past antecedent


                                       Page 2 of 14
   R/CR.MA/17451/2026                               ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026




of similar nature and if the applicant is not released on bail then it will
be a pre-trial detention of the applicant which is against the
fundamental right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India. He has also submitted that there is no financial link or CDR
evidence in the present case so as to prolong the incarceration of the
present applicant 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 applicant is not only a supplier but has indulged in
large scale drug trafficking activity. The contraband Mephedrone
which is seized at the time of raid is 236.780 grams which is obviously
much higher than the commercial quantity and therefore, rigors of
section 37 of the NDPS Act would be applicable in the present case.
The allegation against the applicant is that applicant has indulged in
manufacturing of drug and CDR and financial transactions in the
account of applicant are found. The applicant has also purchased raw
material for preparation of drugs and he was in constant touch of the
co-accused who is running the entire racket from London. Even,
details of whatsapp calls and chat inter se between the co-accused are
found and one co-accused is yet to be arrested and therefore, if the
applicant is released on bail, tampering of evidence and flight risk of
the applicant cannot be ruled out. He has further submitted that
based on specific intelligence, raid was conducted and co-accused Jil
Thummar was found with conscious possession of 236.780 Grams of
Mephedrone, which is more than commercial quantity and therefore,


                                 Page 3 of 14
       R/CR.MA/17451/2026                                ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026




rigors of section 37 of the NDPS Act would be applicable. 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. Therefore, considering
rigors of section 37 of the NDPS Act, applicant is not entitled to any
relief from this Court. He has therefore submitted to dismiss the
present application.

[6.0] Perusing the investigation papers and charge-sheet papers, it
appears that based on intelligence, raid was conducted and co-
accused Jil Thummar was found in conscious possession of 236.780
Grams of Mephedrone, 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
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 is involved
in the present offence.

[6.1] Herein, prima facie, investigation would reveal that applicant is
involved in drug trafficking activity and the applicant is not arraigned
as an accused only on the basis of statement of co-accused but there
is substantial following material collected during the investigation:
(i)       Role attributed to the present applicant is not only limited to
          supplier / peddler but he is systematically engaged in the
          production of such psychotropic substance and was regularly
          supplying such contraband and has actively participated and
          indulged in the illegal activity of drug trafficking.

(ii)      Further, the CDR details with regard to conversation of present
          applicant alongwith co-accused have also been found including

                                     Page 4 of 14
        R/CR.MA/17451/2026                                ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026




           the banking transaction who are actively engaged in drug
           trafficking.

(iii)      Not only that, during the investigation, it has been found that
           the co-accused Brijesh Bhalodiya and Janak Jagani had managed
           one laboratory namely Food and Pharma Analytical Lab under
           the license of one Eesha D/o. Dineshbhai Kanjibhai and used to
           manufacture psychotropic substance for which raw material is
           also purchased by the present applicant and co-accused Janak
           Jagani who is residing at London and who was in contact of the
           said witness and at the instance of said co-accused Janak Jagani,
           entire trafficking racket is running in the country.

(iv)       Even, machines and raw material are purchased and set-up is
           also    prepared   for   the      production   of   such    prohibited
           contraband / psychotropic substance.

(v)        Further, CCTV footage of the said factory, CDR details and
           financial transactions between the applicant and co-accused
           clearly reveals involvement of the present applicant. The co-
           accused Jill Thummar and Khushal Ranpriya are found in contact
           of each other 737 times and 224 calls have been found between
           present applicant and both the said two co-accused and present
           applicant is also found in contact with the co-accused Janak
           Jagani, who is based at London and is running the entire racket
           and is yet to be arrested.

(vi)       Further, locations of present applicant alongwith other co-
           accused are found at the factory place and mobile location of all
           the accused are found at the place i.e. Ankleshwar and Bharuch
           from where raw material is purchased for production /


                                        Page 5 of 14
        R/CR.MA/17451/2026                              ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026




           manufacturing drugs.

(vii)      During the investigation, it has been found that in the mobile
           phone of the applicant, through online and GooglePay amount
           is transferred and the account of wanted accused Janak Jagani
           is active and during investigation, financial transactions of
           Rs.34,500/- have been found for the present applicant which
           was transferred by co-accused Janak Jagani. Further, from the
           GooglePay account of co-accused Jill Thummar, it has been
           found that Rs.46,600/- has been deposited in the account of
           present applicant by the said co-accused Jill Thummar. Further,
           it has been found that financial transactions worth Rs.54,400/-
           have been made through two different GooglePay accounts of
           co-accused Khushal Ranpariya on the account of present
           applicant.

(viii) Even, the applicant has made the payment qua chemical from
           different places and also towards the raw material in the form
           of chemical for production of such drug.

(ix)       Co-accused from London is managing entire racket of drug
           trafficking through the present applicant.

           In view of above, the argument canvassed by learned advocate
for the applicant that nothing is found from the conscious possession
of the present applicant and therefore, applicant is required to be
released on bail is not acceptable since the applicant is arraigned as an
accused in aid of section 29 of the NDPS Act 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’


                                    Page 6 of 14
   R/CR.MA/17451/2026                                  ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026




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. Even otherwise, applicant cannot claim liberty as an
absolutism as of right at the cost of larger public interest. This Court is
of the considered view that if the applicant is released on bail then the
co-accused who is yet to be arrested will not be arrested. Further, the
investigating agency has also recorded statement of four witnesses
wherein the witnesses have clearly stated that present applicant is the
person from whom they used to purchase the drug and thus, the
prosecution has collected enough material to show the involvement
of the present applicant of large scale illegal drug trafficking activity.

[6.2] One more aspect is required to be considered that the
recovered contraband Mephedrone 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


                                 Page 7 of 14
   R/CR.MA/17451/2026                              ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026




from the conscious possession of the co-accused who is found to be in
constant touch 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 co-accused 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.

[6.3] 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 09.01.2026 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


                                Page 8 of 14
   R/CR.MA/17451/2026                                       ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026




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.

[6.4] 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--
      (a) would constitute an offence if committed within India; or



                                     Page 9 of 14
   R/CR.MA/17451/2026                                      ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026




      (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
before the court that the organized activities of the underworld and
the clandestine smuggling of narcotic drugs and psychotropic

                                    Page 10 of 14
   R/CR.MA/17451/2026                              ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026




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
called upon to see if there are reasonable grounds for believing that
the accused is not guilty and records its satisfaction about the


                               Page 11 of 14
   R/CR.MA/17451/2026                                        ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026




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
in the case of Bhawani Singh vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2022
SCC OnLine SC 1991, Mayur Jamanbhai Ajani Vs. State of Gujarat,


                                     Page 12 of 14
   R/CR.MA/17451/2026                                       ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026




[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.

[10.0] Learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as early as

                                    Page 13 of 14
       R/CR.MA/17451/2026                                                         ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026




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 17:56:53




                                                  Page 14 of 14