Bombay High Court

VASIM ALIAS SHARABI AKRAM BEGversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposal: Withdrawn

Holding

The bail application was dismissed as withdrawn, with permission to re‑apply after one year if trial progress is insufficient.

Summary

The applicant, Vasim alias Sharabi Akram Beg, filed a bail application before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, challenging his detention in a narcotics case. The court examined the charge‑sheet and found material evidence against him, rejecting the claim that the seized ganja was not of commercial quantity. The applicant’s counsel argued that the investigating agency failed to segregate flowering tops from leaves and seeds, but the court held that under the NDPS Act, seeds accompanied by flowering tops constitute a commercial quantity. The court allowed the applicant to withdraw the bail application and permitted a fresh application after one year if the trial does not make substantial progress. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to re‑apply later.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is falsely implicated and eligible for bail in the NDPS case
Whether the quantity of seized ganja qualifies as 'commercial quantity' under the NDPS Act
Whether the bail application should be dismissed or allowed to proceed

Legislation cited

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act

Subjects

bail
NDPS Act
commercial quantity
trial delay
withdrawal of application

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:41725
                                                -1-
                                                                    953-BA-1457-2026

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                              BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1457 OF 2026

                              VASIM ALIAS SHARABI AKRAM BEG
                                          VERSUS
                                THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                                               .....
              Advocate for Applicant : Mr. J. M. Murkute
              APP for Respondent - State : Mr. S. A. Gaikwad
                                               .....

                                           CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.
                                           DATED : 9th SEPTEMBER 2026
              PER COURT :

              1.           Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the

              learned APP for respondent – State.


              2.           With the assistance of both the learned counsel, I have

              perused the entire charge-sheet. There is material available

              against the applicant, and therefore, it cannot be said that the

              applicant is falsely implicated in the present offence. Even the

              submission of the learned counsel that the investigating agency

              has not segregated the flowering tops from the leaves and seeds,

              and therefore, the total amount of ganja that is recovered cannot

              be said to be of commercial quantity, is also incorrect in terms of

              the    definition   prescribed   under   the   Narcotic   Drugs   and

              Psychotropic Substances Act, (NDPS Act), which includes seeds

              when accompanied by a flowering top.
                                 -2-
                                                      953-BA-1457-2026




3.         When this Court showed its disinclination to allow the

application, the learned counsel, on instructions, seeks withdrawal

of the application with liberty to file the fresh application after

completion of one year from today, in case substantial progress is

not achieved in the commencement of the trial.


4.         Permission is granted to withdraw the application.


5.         In case there is no substantial progress in the trial after

completion of one year from today, the applicant is at liberty to file

a fresh application before the Trial Court and the same shall be

considered on its own merits.


6.         Application stands dismissed as withdrawn.



                                       (HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR)
                                              JUDGE




Tandale

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…