Bombay High Court

AMOL AMBADAS BHOSALEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposal: APPLICATION ALLOWED
Bench: R M JOSHI

Holding

In the absence of any corroborative evidence linking the applicants to the crime, anticipatory bail was granted.

Summary

The applicants, Santosh @ Bandu Pandharinath Nawalé and Amol Ambadas Bhosale, filed anticipatory bail applications fearing arrest in connection with Crime No.130/2025 involving alleged supply of contraband gutkha. The FIR records a raid that seized a large quantity of gutkha from a co‑accused, whose statement implicates the applicants, but no other evidence links them to the offence. The applicants argued that the co‑accused’s statement lacks evidentiary value, they have no criminal record, and thus their liberty should be protected. The State contended that the seriousness of the offence and the quantity seized justify denial of bail. The Court observed that no corroborative evidence has been gathered to connect the applicants with the crime and therefore, at this stage, anticipatory bail could be granted, issuing an interim order in their favour.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the only incriminating material is an uncorroborated statement of a co‑accused.
Whether the seriousness of the offence and the quantity of contraband seized warrant denial of anticipatory bail.
Whether a co‑accused’s statement has evidentiary value for the purpose of granting anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 123, 223, 274, 275
Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 — s. 26(2)(i), 26(2)(ii), 26(2)(iv), 27(3)(e), 30(2)(a), 59

Subjects

anticipatory bail
food safety law
contraband gutkha
evidentiary value
co-accused statement
criminal antecedents
bail jurisprudence

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:27446




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                       ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 861 OF 2025

                          SANTOSH @ BANDU PANDHARINATH NAWALE
                                             VERSUS
                                  THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                                                …
           Mr. Arvind Ramnath Kawade, Advocate for Applicant
           Mr. A. V. Lawate, APP for the Respondent/State

                                           WITH
                       ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 862 OF 2025

                                     AMOL AMBADAS BHOSALE
                                             VERSUS
                                  THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                                                …
           Mr. Arvind Ramnath Kawade, Advocate for Applicant
           Mr. A. V. Lawate, APP for the Respondent/State

                                                      CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
                                                      DATED    : 10th JULY, 2026

           PER COURT :-

           1.    The    applicants   apprehend   arrest   in   connection   with   Crime

           No.130/2025, registered with Paithan Police Station, District Aurangabad, for

           the offences punishable under Sections 26(2)(i), 26(2)(ii), 26(2)(iv), 27(3)

           (e), 30(2)(a), 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and 223, 274,

           275, 123 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.


           2.    The First Information Report indicates that a raid was conducted in



           ABA 861, 862.2025.odt                                                   1 of 3
which a considerably huge quantity of contraband gutkha was seized from the

co-accused. On the basis of the statement of the co-accused, the prosecution

seeks to implicate the present applicants in the crime. The applicants are

alleged to be a supplier of the contraband gutkha.


3.    Learned Advocate for the applicants submits that, except for the alleged

statement of the co-accused, there is no evidence to connect the applicants

with the crime. It is further argued that the statement of the co-accused has

no evidentiary value and, in the absence of any other connecting evidence, the

involvement of the applicants in the crime cannot be presumed. It is further

argued that the applicants have no criminal antecedents; therefore, their

liberty deserves to be protected.


4.    Learned APP opposed the grant of relief to the applicants by citing the

seriousness of the crime as well as the quantity of contraband seized at the

instance of the co-accused. It is his submission that the statement of the co-

accused may not be relevant at the trial; however, it can be considered by the

Investigating Agency during the course of investigation. He, therefore, submits

that the applications deserve to be rejected.


5.    Prima facie, a perusal of the record indicates that the contraband

gutkha was seized from the co-accused. No doubt, the statement of the co-



ABA 861, 862.2025.odt                                                    2 of 3
accused would be relevant for the purpose of further investigation. However,

during the course of investigation, no further evidence has been collected

against the present applicants showing any connection between the applicants

and the co-accused. In the absence of any such evidence, it cannot be held, at

this stage, that the applicants are connected with the crime in question.


6.    In view of this, Applications are allowed in terms of interim order.



                                                      ( R. M. JOSHI, J.)
ssp




ABA 861, 862.2025.odt                                                        3 of 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…