Bombay High Court
DHANRAJ DHARAMSING BARDEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Disposal
- APPLICATION ALLOWED
Holding
In the absence of any independent material linking the applicant to the alleged offence and given the non‑serious nature of the charges, bail must be granted subject to conditions.
Summary
The applicant was arrested for allegedly driving a pickup van that was intercepted carrying illegal liquor, with a mobile phone recovered from the vehicle. The prosecution alleged the applicant was the driver, but the FIR described the occupants as unknown and no witness identified him; the vehicle belonged to a third party and no documentary evidence linked the applicant to it. The applicant contested the identification, denied ownership of the phone, and highlighted the pending forensic report, while noting his clean record and lack of any liquor recovered from him. The State argued that the substantial seizure and the applicant's escape from the scene justified denial of bail. The court found that the charge‑sheet contained no independent evidence tying the applicant to the offence, the offences are triable by a Judicial Magistrate with a maximum five‑year term, and the applicant’s antecedents are clean, thus granting bail with a personal bond and conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite the alleged involvement in the illegal liquor seizure.
- Whether the absence of independent identification evidence precludes continued detention.
- The effect of co‑accused absconding on the applicant’s bail eligibility.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 3(5)
- Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 — s. 108, 65(a), 65(e), 81
Subjects
- bail
- illegal liquor
- identification evidence
- mobile phone evidence
- absconding co‑accused
- Maharashtra Prohibition Act
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- criminal antecedents
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:38134
-1-
940-BA-1328-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1328 OF 2026
DHANRAJ DHARAMSING BARDE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
......
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Sushil Pushpendra Pandit a/w Mr.
Umesh Gangadhar Mitkari
APP for Respondent - State : Mr. K. K. Naik
.....
CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.
DATED : 20th AUGUST 2026
PER COURT :
1. Heard learned Advocate for the applicant as well as
learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent – State.
2. Perused investigation papers.
3. Present application is filed for regular bail in connection
with FIR bearing Crime No.193 of 2026, registered on 22 nd May,
2026 with Mhasawad Police Station, Tq. Shahada, Dist. Nandurbar,
for offences punishable under Sections, 65(a),(e), 81 and 108 of
Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 and Section 3(5) of Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that upon receipt of
-2-
940-BA-1328-2026
secret information, a pickup van bearing registration No. MH-15-
HH-8276 was intercepted on the Mhasawad–Toranmal Road on
21st May, 2026. The driver and the person accompanying him
abandoned the vehicle and escaped in the darkness. The pickup
van was carrying illegal liquor worth Rs.19,20,000/-. Upon search
along with the illegal liquor, a mobile phone was found. As it is
alleged that the present applicant was driving the vehicle and that
he has absconded from the scene of the offence, the illegal liquor,
mobile phone and the pickup van were seized by the police. In
continuation of the said investigation, additional illegal liquor
worth Rs.29,64,480/- was seized from the house of the co-accused,
who is absconding. The prosecution against the present applicant
is only on the ground that the present applicant was driving the
pickup van.
5. The learned Advocate appearing for the applicant
submitted that the FIR described the driver and cleaner as
unknown and that nobody had identified the applicant as the
driver. The vehicle belongs to a third person, but neither the
statement of the registered owner nor any documentary material
showing that the vehicle was entrusted to the present applicant or
was being driven by the present applicant forms part of the
investigation papers. The applicant disputes that the mobile phone
-3-
940-BA-1328-2026
recovered from the deserted vehicle belongs to present applicant.
However, he admits that the mobile phone with the SIM card is in
the name of the present applicant's father. However, the forensic
report pertaining to the analysis of the said mobile is still awaited.
It is further argued that the only statement attributing the act of
driving to the applicant is his own statement recorded by the
police, which is not a substantive piece of evidence against him
and, in any event, the said statement is not admissible in law.
There is no recovery at the instance of the present applicant and,
furthermore, he has no criminal antecedents.
6. The learned APP opposed the application on the ground
that a substantial quantity of illicit liquor was recovered from the
van which was driven by the present applicant. He also
emphasized the conduct of the present applicant in absconding
from the scene of the offence the moment the vehicle was accosted.
He also relied upon the recovery of the mobile phone, which was
found in the deserted vehicle and furthermore sought to connect
the present applicant with the alleged offence on the basis of the
statement given to the police by the present applicant. He further
argued that the other co-accused are absconding and therefore,
allowing the bail application of the present applicant and releasing
him on bail would derail the entire investigation.
-4-
940-BA-1328-2026
7. I have perused the entire charge-sheet with the
assistance of the learned APP. Prima facie, the FIR does not
identify the applicant and records that both the occupants of the
vehicle escaped in the darkness. There is no statement of any
witness to show that the applicant has been identified as the
person who was driving the said vehicle. Though the vehicle
belongs to a third person, the entire charge-sheet and the
investigation are completely silent about the owner of the vehicle,
there is no statement of the owner recorded and therefore there is
no independent material to connect the present applicant with the
allegation that he was driving the said vehicle. The applicant
disputes ownership of the mobile phone which was found in the
abandoned vehicle and the forensic report is also awaited.
Recovery of the said mobile phone by itself, at this stage, is
insufficient to warrant material against the present applicant.
Furthermore, there is no recovery of any illegal liquor from the
person of the present applicant or at his instance.
8. Taking into consideration the aforesaid material, the
fact that the investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has
already been filed, and the offences that has been alleged against
the present applicant are punishable with a maximum sentence of
-5-
940-BA-1328-2026
five years and are triable by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, the
applicant deserves to be released on bail.
The applicant admittedly has no criminal antecedents
and has been in custody since 6 th June, 2026. The fact that the
other accused persons are absconding cannot, by itself, justify his
continued detention. His presence and the interests of the trial can
be secured by imposing appropriate conditions. The applicant,
therefore, deserves to be released on bail. Hence, following order :
ORDER
(i) The Bail Application is allowed.
(ii) The applicant shall be released on bail in Crime No.193 of
2026 registered with Mhasawad Police Station, Tq. Shahada,
Dist. Nandurbar, for offences punishable under Sections,
65(a),(e), 81 and 108 of Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949
and Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, on
furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount,
subject to the following conditions :
a) The applicant shall attend the concerned police station
twice in a month i.e. on every first Monday and last
Monday till committal of case and thereafter, shall
attend the Trial Court on every date fixed, unless their
attendance is specifically exempted.
b) The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, contact,
-6-
940-BA-1328-2026
threaten, induce or influence the informant or any
prosecution witness and shall not tamper with the
prosecution evidence.
c) The applicant shall furnish his current residential
addresse and mobile numbers to the Investigating
Officer and the trial Court within seven days of release,
intimate any change forthwith, and attend the
Investigating Officer upon prior written notice if further
investigation is required.
d) The applicant shall not leave India without prior
permission of the trial Court and, if he possess passport,
shall deposit the same with the trial Court within seven
days of their release.
e) The applicant shall not involve himself in any offence of
a similar nature while on bail.
f) Breach of any of the above conditions shall entitle the
prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail.
g) All observations in this order are prima facie and
confined to the decision of this bail application. The trial
Court shall decide the case independently on the
evidence led before it.
(iii) The Bail Application is disposed of in the above terms.
(HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR)
JUDGE
Tandale
Checking your session…