PRAFUL NARESH DHODIversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                                                   901-ABA-1010-2026.ODT




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
               CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
        ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1010 OF 2026
Praful Naresh Dhodi                                    …Applicant
      Versus
The State of Maharashtra                               …Respondent


Adv. Rajesh Vishnu Adrekar, for the Applicant.
Mr. Arfan Sait, A.P. P., for the Respondent – State.
API Bhagwat Chaudhari, Boisar Police Station, Palghar, is present.


                      CORAM :           PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.
                      DATE         :     1ST OCTOBER 2026
P.C:-

1.      Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned

APP for the respondent-State

2.      The applicant has filed the instant application under

Section 482 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

(for short, “BNSS”) seeking pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 286 of

2025 dated 01.07.2025 registered with Boisar Police Station,

Dist. Palghar, for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c) and

20(b)(ii) of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances

Act, 1985 (for short, “NDPS”).

3.      The FIR is registered on the basis of a raid conducted by

the police officer on 30.06.2025 at 21:40 hrs. on the room of


                                   Page 1 of 6
                              st
                             1 October 2026
                                                901-ABA-1010-2026.ODT




Panchu Kujar, which led to recovery of 12.780 kg. of ganja,

which was allegedly stored for the purpose of sale in the market.

During the subsequent investigation, following the statements of

various co-accused, the chain of supply was traced, and the

name of the present applicant was revealed as a supplier, who

has allegedly stored the said ganja in the room of Panchu Kujar.

FIR is registered against Panchu Kunjar, however, apprehending

arrest in connection with the present offence, the applicant has

filed the application for anticipatory bail.

4.    The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the

allegations against the applicant are entirely baseless and that

he is not named in the FIR. He further submits that the

applicant has been falsely implicated in the offence solely on the

basis of the statements made by the co-accused. He states that

the applicant was neither present at the location when the raid

was conducted, nor has any recovery been made from him. He

also submitted that rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are

not attracted in the present case. He submits that the main

accused i.e. Panchu Kujar is granted regular bail from the

Sessions Court.




                                  Page 2 of 6
                             st
                            1 October 2026
                                              901-ABA-1010-2026.ODT




       He also submits that as a matter of fact, on 30.06.2025,

the applicant received a call from an unknown number inquiring

about a painting job at the JSW Steel office, and in response

thereto upon reaching the specified location, he was nabbed by

approximately six police personnel and taken to his residence.

The police then conducted an illegal search of his house in the

presence of the co-accused, during which nothing incriminating

was recovered. He submits that this entire incident has not been

recorded in the FIR and this shows that he is falsely implicated.

5.    In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the

applicant relies upon the judgment of the Nagpur Bench of this

Hon’ble Court in Tanmay Akhilesh Trivedi vs. State of

Maharashtra in ABA No. 639 of 2025, wherein it was held that

an accused cannot be implicated merely on the confessional

statement of a co-accused and in such case the Anticipatory Bail

Application was granted. He therefore prays that the present

Anticipatory Bail Application be allowed.

6.    Per contra, learned APP for the respondent-State opposes

the application and submits that the offence registered against

the present applicant is serious in nature and, therefore, the




                                Page 3 of 6
                           st
                          1 October 2026
                                               901-ABA-1010-2026.ODT




present application deserves to be rejected. He submits that the

role of this applicant has been specifically stated in the FIR as

the supplier of the contraband who had kept the contraband in

the room of Panchu Kujar. He further submits that the rigours of

Section 37 of the NDPS Act are strictly attracted in the present

case, as per the Panchnama. He highlights that the co-accused

Panchu Kujar has expressly named this applicant as the supplier

of the narcotic substance and further the Call Data Records

establish that the applicant was in continuous touch with the co-

accused until 30.06.2026. He also points out that the applicant

has a history of prior criminal antecedents.

         By placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble

 Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Samarth Kumar

 reported at 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2087, learned APP submitted

 that granting anticipatory bail solely on the ground that no

 recovery was effected from the applicant and that he was

 implicated only on the basis of a co-accused's statement would

 be wrong approach in an NDPS case. He submitted that the

 statement of co-accused is corroborated with CDR Reports

 showing the fact that this applicant was in continuous contact

 with co-accused till 30.06.2026 and therefore, reliance on


                                Page 4 of 6
                           st
                          1 October 2026
                                               901-ABA-1010-2026.ODT




 Judgment of Tanmay Trivedi (cited supra) is misplaced. He

 contended that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is

 absolutely necessary to complete the chain of investigation to

 disclose the entire supply network, and apprehend the

 mastermind behind the illegal trade.

7.    Perused the FIR and the documents placed on record. It is

pertinent to note that the applicant has been attributed with a

particular role in FIR and it is revealed during investigation that

he is supplier. The co-accused has specifically named the

applicant as the supplier of the narcotic substance. Furthermore,

the Call Data Records (CDR) establish that the applicant was in

continuous touch with the co-accused until 30.06.2026. Further,

there are criminal antecedents against the applicant.

8.    It is crucial to note that the statement of co-accused is

corroborated with CDR. As such, the prosecution case is not

entirely based on statement of co-accused. Thus, there is prima

facie material to show applicant’s involvement in the crime. It

has to be noted that the offence under NDPS Act is a serious

offence and the discretionary powers under Section 482 of

BNSS needs to be exercised with caution. In the light of position

of law as dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of


                                 Page 5 of 6
                            st
                           1 October 2026
                                                    901-ABA-1010-2026.ODT




Harayana Vs. Samarth Kumar (referred supra) and considering

the fact that there is corroboration to the statement of the co-

accused, I do not find this to be a fit case for grant of

anticipatory bail. In view of the above mentioned aspects, the

applicant cannot seek any advantage from the order of

coordinate bench in Tanmay Trivedi (cited supra), in which bail

was granted in the facts of that case.

9.          Having regard to the material on record the custodial

interrogation of the applicant is warranted to complete the

chain of investigation and unearth the supply network. Thus, I

am of the considered opinion that the exercise of judicial

discretion under Section 482 of the BNSS is not warranted in

the present matter. Accordingly, the present Anticipatory Bail

Application deserves to be rejected.

10.         In view of the above, the instant Anticipatory Bail

Application is rejected.




                                          (PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)
VDMokal/-




                                    Page 6 of 6
                               st
                              1 October 2026