UTTAM BABAN PADVALversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:43891
                                              -1-
                                                                  901-BA-1355-2026

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                            BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1355 OF 2026

                                  UTTAM BABAN PADVAL
                                         VERSUS
                               THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                                              .....
              Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Chaitanya Chandrakant Deshpande
              APP for Respondent - State : Mr. S. A. Gaikwad
                                              ..…

                                         CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.
                                         DATED : 22nd SEPTEMBER, 2026
              PER COURT :

              1.         Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned

              APP for respondent – State. With the able assistance of both the

              learned counsel, I have gone through the entire copy of the charge-

              sheet and the investigation papers.



              2.         The present application is filed by the applicant herein

              seeking regular bail in connection with his arrest in FIR bearing

              No. 1072 of 2025, registered with Sangamner City Police Station,

              District Ahilyanagar, dated 11.12.2025. The applicant came to be

              arrested in connection with the present offence on 11.12.2025.



              3.         The prosecution alleges that, during the raid which was

              carried out on 11.12.2025, 327 kilograms of ganja was recovered
                                -2-
                                                    901-BA-1355-2026

from a locked room near the applicant's residence and 129

kilograms from a Piaggio Ape vehicle. The applicant was present at

his residence when the raid was carried out. On being specifically

asked by the raiding team to hand over the keys to open the lock of

the premises, it is alleged that the present applicant got the key

from his residence and opened the room in which the contraband

was found. In respect of the vehicle, he stated that the vehicle

belonged to him but was being used by his son Tushar. According to

the prosecution, Tushar and the other accused persons had

procured the substance and stored it for sale. The seizure papers

describing flowering and fruiting tops and the charge-sheet records

a positive laboratory result.



4.         Learned Advocate for the applicant submits that the

room had been given for another person's use and the applicant did

not know what was stored there. Nothing objectionable was

recovered from his person or from the portion occupied by him.

The vehicle, though belonging to him, was being used by his son

Tushar, who is also a co-accused and is arrested and presently in

custody. Learned Advocate submits that the other material,

including the videography relied upon by the prosecution, does not

show the present applicant handling, procuring or selling the

substance. He further submits that the applicant is 55 years of age
                                 -3-
                                                     901-BA-1355-2026

and has no criminal antecedents. He has been languishing in

custody since 11.12.2025, and therefore, he deserves to be

released on bail.



5.         He further makes a legal submission pertaining to the

inventory which was carried out before the Magistrate, as required

under Section 52A, which does not refer to the recovered

substance as having any flowering tops or fruiting tops. He submits

that what has been mentioned therein is only green and smelly

leaves. He then refers to the FSL report, which mentions flowering

tops and fruiting tops in each and every sample that has been

submitted. He submits that this glaring discrepancy in the

prosecution record creates a reasonable doubt and therefore, at

this stage, the Court should exercise its discretion and release the

applicant on bail.



6.         Learned APP opposes the application. He submits that

the substance that has been recovered is ganja and the same has

been throughout described in the prosecution case. Though the

inventory carried out before the Magistrate does not make

reference to fruiting tops and flowering tops, according to him, this

cannot be a glaring discrepancy, as the object of Section 52A is

only to conduct panchnama before an independent authority. This
                                  -4-
                                                       901-BA-1355-2026

compliance has been done. According to him, the prosecution has

sufficiently placed on record the material supporting that the

substance that has been recovered is ganja, which falls within the

definition as provided under the NDPS Act. He makes reference to

the the seizure panchnama carried out by the police and also the

FSL report. He thus submits that the applicant, though claims to be

the owner and have no knowledge, at this stage, cannot be assessed

for the simple reason that a huge quantity of ganja has been found

in premises that was belonging to the present applicant and also

from the auto-rickshaw which belongs to the present applicant. He

thus submits that there is ample material available on record and,

in this serious offence, the applicant should not be released on bail.



7.         The quantity involved is commercial and the conditions

in Section 37 must therefore be met, is one of the thrusts of the

arguments of the applicant. The applicant's possession of the room

and his connection with the vehicle are also circumstances of

consequences. They have been considered together with the

substantial recoveries and cannot be brushed aside. Yet the

recovery was from the room, separate from the portion of the

house occupied by him, where nothing objectionable was found.

The applicant's explanation that another person used the room and

that Tushar used to use the vehicle must be tested at the time of
                                  -5-
                                                         901-BA-1355-2026

trial. On the material identified in the course of this hearing, no act

of procuring transport or sale by the applicant, nor any material

particulars,    communication,          or   financial      transaction

demonstrating his knowledge of the contents, has been pointed out.

His ownership and his ability to open the room raise suspicion, but

when viewed with the identified use by others and the absence of

material showing his own participation, they do not presently

establish knowing possession on his part.



8.          Learned Advocate for applicant has also questioned the

description of the substance in the Magistrate's inventory. On

examining the relevant entries, however, it is seen that flowering

and fruiting tops are mentioned in respect of the sample packets.

That objection does not assist the applicant at this stage. The Court

proceeds on the footing that the prosecution has material to

establish recovery of a commercial quantity of ganja. The question

material to this application is whether the applicant knowingly

possessed the substance or knowingly participated in its storage or

sale. Upon considering the entire material presently identified

against the present applicant individually, I find reasonable

grounds for believing that he may not be guilty of the offence, at

least at this stage. I find reasonable grounds for believing that the

material alleged by the prosecution at this stage against present
                                   -6-
                                                        901-BA-1355-2026

applicant requires to be tested before the Trial Court with the

support of material evidence. Prima facie, the applicant has no

reported antecedents. Investigation concerning him has resulted in

a charge-sheet, and conditions securing his attendance and

preventing interference with the evidence sufficiently address the

likelihood of his involvement in any offence while on bail. Both

requirements of Section 37 are thus satisfied for the limited

purpose of this application. Hence, the following order :-

                                 ORDER

(i)    The Bail Application is allowed.

(ii)   The applicant - Uttam Baban Padval shall be released on bail
       in Crime No. No. 1072 of 2025, registered with Sangamner
       City Police Station, District Ahilyanagar, for the offences
       punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii), 25 and 29 of NDPS
       Act, on furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
       Thousand only) with one or two solvent sureties in the like
       amount, subject to the following conditions :

       a)    The applicant shall not enter Sukewadi village, Tq.
             Sangamner till framing of charge. The applicant shall
             stay outside the said village for the said period.

       b)    The applicant shall attend the concerned police station
             on every Monday of every month between 10:00 a.m.
             and 02:00 p.m. till framing of charge and thereafter
             shall regularly attend each and every effective date
             before the trial court.
                                      -7-
                                                          901-BA-1355-2026




          c)   Before his release, he shall furnish to the Investigating
               Officer and the Trial Court the address at which he will
               reside during the said period and his mobile number,
               and shall intimate any change thereof.

          d)   The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, contact,
               threaten, induce or influence the informant or any
               prosecution witness and shall not tamper with the
               prosecution evidence.

          e)   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 his release.


          f)   The applicant shall not involve himself in any offence of
               a similar nature while on bail.


          g)   Breach of any of the above conditions shall entitle the
               prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail.


          h)   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