Bombay High Court
ABHISHEK VILAS BALKAWADEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court granted bail to the applicant, finding that the prosecution had not established his identity and that parity with co‑accused required bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Abhishek Vilas Balkawade, who was charged under Sections 8(c), 22(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 in Crime No. 460 of 2023. The prosecution’s case relied solely on statements of the Jadhav brothers, which did not expressly name the applicant, leading the defence to argue a case of mistaken identity. The applicant was already incarcerated for another NDPS offence, and the court noted that several co‑accused had already been released on bail, establishing parity. The court observed that the prosecution had not produced any material directly linking the applicant to the contraband and had not complied with the safeguards under Sections 50 and 52 of the NDPS Act. Consequently, the court held that bail should be granted, subject to standard conditions. The bail was ordered on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety and various reporting and non‑interference conditions.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate bail disposition for an accused under the NDPS Act when the prosecution’s evidence does not conclusively identify the accused?
- Does the lack of direct material evidence and the principle of parity with co‑accused warrant the grant of bail?
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 22, 29, 50, 52, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- mistaken identity
- circumstantial evidence
- parity
- statutory safeguards
- criminal procedure
Judgment
28-ba-1124-26.doc
Urmila Ingale
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
URMILA
Digitally signed
by URMILA
PRAMOD
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PRAMOD INGALE
Date:
INGALE 2026.08.19
10:33:55 +0530
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1124 OF 2026
Abhishek Vilas Balkawade .. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
....................
Mr.Gagandeep Singh a/w Mr. Raviraj Dhanawade, Ms.Sphurti G.
Singh, Mr. Abhijeet Phulsundar, Mr. Dattatray Yadav i/b Mr.
Manjeet Lotankar, Advocates for Applicant.
Ms. Shilpa G. Talhar, APP for Respondent-State.
API-Mr. Vishal Patil, ANC Nashik City present.
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : AUGUST 18, 2026
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Singh, learned Advocate for Applicant and Ms.
Talhar, learned APP for Respondent.
2. By this Bail Application, Applicant - accused is seeking
enlargement on bail in Crime No. 460 of 2023 registered with Nashik
Road Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c),
22(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985 (“NDPS Act”, for short). Date of the incident is 07/10/2023.
3. A case of mistaken identity is what has been propounded by
the prosecution in the present case qua the Applicant before the Court.
The case of the prosecution stems from two statements given by the
1 of 6
28-ba-1124-26.doc
first informant who are the Jadhav Brothers being the owners of a
godown in Nashik. The said godown in question was taken on leave
and licence basis by the accused no.1-Shivaji Ambadas Shinde. Insofar
as the present Applicant called Abhishek Vilas Balkawade is concerned,
his name does not figure anywhere in the prosecution case, save and
except when Shivaji Ambadas Shinde’s statement is recorded by the
prosecution, copy of which is appended at page 298 by the
prosecution. Prima facie, a reading of the said statement shows that
accused no.1 had contacted Vilas Jadhav one of the owners of the said
godown for seeking to take the said godown on leave and licence basis
on the pretext that one of his friends had a farm and he wanted to
manufacture certain ointments and medicines. The statement of the
other Jadhav Brother namely Dattu Jadhav has also been recorded by
the prosecution on 13/10/2023, copy of which is appended at page
141. His statement when read, does not name the Applicant.
However, he has named two specific persons out of the total 9 accused
persons, one person he named is accused no. 1 – Shivaji Ambadas
Shinde. The second person that he has named is a person called
Sanjay Kale. The reference to Sanjay Kale is very specific inasmuch as
Dattu Jadhav confirms that the cheques towards the leave and licence
fee received by them were issued by Sanjay Kale. Complainant’s case is
that there was something suspicious that was being manufactured in
the godown by the accused persons and the reference is to Shivaji
2 of 6
28-ba-1124-26.doc
Shinde and his group of friends who were involved whereafter the
Jadhav Brothers approached the Police Station. The Police recorded
their statement and raided the godown and recovered contraband
namely MD.
4. Learned Advocate for the Applicant would submit that at
that time, Abhishek Vilas Balkawade- the Applicant who is an engineer
by profession, was incidentally already apprehended and was behind
bars in another NDPS case. He would submit that the twin statements
relied upon by the prosecution are the only material to involve and
indict the Applicant. The case of mistaken identity is also pleaded by
him. He would submit that in the present offence, his date of arrest
has been shown as 05/12/2023 and he is being behind bars for 33
months. That apart, he would submit that the case of the prosecution
is that the person who issued the cheques to the Jadhav Brothers
namely Sanjay Kale was none other than the present Applicant, but
there is no material whatsoever placed on record by the prosecution to
prove the same, neither there is any investigation directed in that
direction. He would submit that complicity and involvement of the
Applicant is purely based on circumstantial evidence which is in the
form of the statement given by Shri Jadhav appended at page 141 read
with the statement of accused no.1 appended at page 298. He would
vehemently submit that the statement which is appended at page 298
does not show the role attributed to the Applicant. Rather he would
3 of 6
28-ba-1124-26.doc
submit that the name of the Applicant though mentioned therein, at
the said time, the Applicant was never present at all. That apart,
learned advocate would also persuade the Court to consider parity in
favour of the Applicant on the ground that accused nos. 4, 7, 8 and 9
have all been released on bail either by this Court or by the trial Court.
Three of the accused persons have been released on bail by order dated
05/08/2024, copies of which are placed before me. Prima facie,
reading the said order, clearly makes out a case, rather a better case
for the Applicant before me. No recovery of contraband has been
effected on the Applicant, identity of the Applicant is not established
by the prosecution, prima facie a discrepancy in the prosecution case to
identify the Applicant and non-compliance of statutory safeguards
under Sections 50 and 52 of NDPS Act are seen. Hence, insofar as the
precise role attributed to the Applicant is concerned, in view of the
aforesaid observations and findings, since the same has not been
clearly identified, the Applicant deserves parity and deserves to be
enlarged on bail. Prolonged incarceration is also the another reason as
to why I am impelled to pass this order as the trial will take a
humongous amount of time to be concluded. Hence, the Applicant is
released on bail on the following terms and conditions.
5. In view of the above the following order is passed:-
(i) Applicant is directed to be immediately released from
4 of 6
28-ba-1124-26.doc
prison in connection with Crime No. 460 of 2023;
(ii) Applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing
P.R. Bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) with one
surety of the like amount;
(iii) Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer at
Nashik Road Police Station, once every month on the first
Sunday of the month between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.;
(iv) Applicant shall co-operate with the conduct of trial and
attend the Trial Court on all dates, unless specifically
exempted and will not take any unnecessary adjournments,
if he does so it will entitle the prosecution to apply for
revocation of this order;
(v) Applicant shall not leave the State of Maharashtra
without prior permission of the Trial Court;
(vi) Applicant shall not influence with any of the witnesses
or tamper with the evidence in any manner;
(vii) Applicant shall keep the Investigating Officer informed
of his current address and mobile contact number and / or
change of residence or mobile details, if any, from time to
time, as applicable; and
(viii) Any infraction of the conditions shall entail cancellation
of bail granted to the Applicant.
5 of 6
28-ba-1124-26.doc
6. Needless to state that the above observations will not come
in the way of trial as they are prima facie in nature based on the
submissions made and the material placed before this Court.
7. Bail Application is allowed and disposed of in the above
terms.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
6 of 6
Checking your session…