ARBAZ KASIM KISAR KHANversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

P.H. JAYANI                                              901 BA1681.2026.DOC


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
             CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1681 OF 2026

Arbaz Kasim Kisar Khan                                   …. Applicant
      V/s.
The State of Maharashtra                                …Respondent



Mr. Ayaz Khan a/w. Ms. Zehra Charania and Ms. Mallika Sharma
for the Applicant.
Mr. Vinit Kulkarni, APP for the Respondent – State.
Mr. Pushparaj Surve, API, ANC-1, CB, MBVV, present.


                            CORAM:       SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
                            DATED :      20th AUGUST, 2026

P.C. :-

1.        Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

2.        The Applicant seeks his release on bail in Special (NDPS)
Case No.669/2025 pending on the file of learned Special Judge
(under the NDPS Act), Thane arising out of C.R.No.II-226/2025
registered with Kashigaon Police Station, Thane for the offences
punishable under Sections 8(c), 22(c) and 29 of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985 and Section
111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 on the Report
dated 18.05.2025 filed by Mahesh Uddhav Velhe, PHC.

3.        The prosecution case is that on 17.05.2025, at about 2200
hours, when the team of Anti-Narcotic Cell, Mira Bhayander
Police Commissionerate arrived near Hindustan Petrol Pump,
near Versova Bridge, Accused No.1 - Soheb Ismail Kutchi @ Reti
(A1) was present there. His conduct was suspicious. Therefore,

                                Page 1 of 7
P.H. JAYANI                                            901 BA1681.2026.DOC



police accosted him and conducted his personal search in the
presence of panchas. A1 was found in possession of 61.1 grams of
Mephedrone. It was seized. On inquiry, A1 revealed that he had
purchased that Mephedrone from Accused No.2-Aniket Nikam
(A2) from whom 55.6 grams of Mephedrone was seized.
Accordingly, Mr. Velhe, PHC lodged the Report and present crime
came to be registered. During further investigation, A3 to A9 were
arrested and certain quantity of Mephedrone was seized/
recovered from them. Applicant is Accused No.4 (A4) who was
arrested on 21.07.2025 from Goa. On completion of investigation,
police submitted the charge-sheet.

         The trial Court declined to release the Applicant on bail
mainly on two counts. First, that the contraband seized from the
possession of the Applicant, is of commercial quantity. Second, he
had two similar criminal antecedents.

4.       Mr. Khan, learned Counsel for the Applicant has pointed out
certain discrepancies in the investigation material and contended
that, same are sufficient to hold that no contraband was recovered
from the Applicant and the contraband allegedly recovered by the
Applicant, was foisted on him. It is submitted that, as alleged,
55.01 grams of Mephedrone was seized including the weight of the
plastic packet in which it was kept. Moreover, said contraband
contains four other drugs, three of which are not covered under
the NDPS Act. Therefore, in any case, the said contraband was not
of commercial quantity. This takes out the Applicant’s case out of
the rigours of Section 37 of NDPS Act. The Applicant is
incarcerated for more than one year. Therefore, he may be
released on bail.



                               Page 2 of 7
P.H. JAYANI                                               901 BA1681.2026.DOC



5.       Opposing said submissions, Mr. Kulkarni, the learned APP
submitted that there is sufficient material against the Applicant
that he alongwith the co-accused was dealing in the illicit drug.
This fact is fortified by the recovery of the commercial quantity of
the contraband at the instance of the Applicant. It is submitted
that, the discrepancies are pointed out by Mr. Khan are not serious
or major and the same are matters of trial. Therefore, there is a
prima facie case against the Applicant. This coupled with the
rigours of Section 37 of NDPS and Applicant’s criminal
antecedents impel to deny him bail.

6.       I have considered these submissions. The 1st discrepancy is
about the presence of certain police at the time of recording the
Memorandum of the voluntary disclosure of the Applicant and
timings of departure of said police to the place of the recovery of
the contraband, by one of the two vehicles.

         In this regard record indicates that, Investigation Officer
Mr.Santosh Ghadge, PSI recorded the Memorandum of the
voluntary disclosure of the Applicant, between 2030 hours to 2115
hours, in the presence of the panchas, Sachin Kamble-Police
Inspector and, other police. Thereafter, said police team alongwith
the panchas and the Applicant went to the place of the recovery by
two vehicles bearing regn. Nos. MH-04-HX-0891 and MH-04-LT-
9759. However, as per the daily logbook entry, Sachin Kamble-
Police Inspector and two others with him had already left for the
said place of the recovery by the said vehicle bearing No.9759, at
left at 2000 hours, that is much prior to recording the
Memorandum         of   the   disclosure.     Secondly,   the   recovery
panchanama was concluded at 2215 hours, and till then, Mr.
Sachin Kamble, PI was present there. However, as per the


                                Page 3 of 7
P.H. JAYANI                                                901 BA1681.2026.DOC



logbook, the vehicle bearing No.9759 had already returned back
to the ANC Unit at 2215 hours.

7.       Secondly, after the allegedly recovery of the contraband by
the Applicant, it was sealed in a packet and marked Exhibit “C”,
for identification. However, during inventory, the learned
Magistrate noted that the contraband packet was Exhibit “D”. Mr.
Kulkarni, on instructions, submitted that it was mistake of the
Investigation Officer because the contraband recovered from A3
was marked Exhibit “C”, therefore, during inventory, the said
mistake was cured by changing the Exhibit “C” to Exhibit “D”.
However, nothing is pointed from the record that to prima facie
show, indeed, it was the mistake of the I.O.

8.        The aforesaid discrepancies indicate a very casual approach
towards the investigation. Additionally, it is may be noted that the
Applicant was arrested on 21.07.2025 and the recovery is effected
after eight days, i.e., on 29.07.2025, from an abandoned unlocked
car which was lying in an open place easily accessible to all.
Therefore, it is difficult to prima facie conclude that the Applicant
made the alleged disclosure leading to the recovery of the
contraband.

9.       As per the report of the C.A., at Page No.313, the said
contraband substance was a mixture of five drugs namely
Mephedrone,        Methamphetamine,           Ephedrine,    Phenacetin,
Lidocaine and Dimethyl sulfone. The last three are neither
narcotic nor psychotropic as claimed by Mr. Khan. This assertion
is not controverted by the Respondent. The contraband was
weighed alongwith the plastic packet in which it was kept.
Therefore, it cannot be denied that the contraband was an
intermediate quantity, not commercial. To fortify this conclusion,

                                Page 4 of 7
P.H. JAYANI                                            901 BA1681.2026.DOC



a useful reference may be maid to the Order of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Sentu Seikh vs. State of West Bengal, Cril.
Appeal No.86 of 2026. Therein, the Appellant, Sentu Seikh, was
allegedly found in possession of 514 grams of what appeared to be
Heroin. But, it was stated to be a combination of Morphine,
Codeine and Thebaine. It gave rise to a the question as to whether
Section of the NDPS Act would have application to the case on
hand, given the fact that the prosecution has not separated the
three ingredients allegedly found with the appellant, so as to
quantify them. Therefore, the top Court find no grounds to
continue with the incarceration of the appellant, at that stage and
granted bail. Similarly, in Ahmed Raja Mohd. Rafiq Khan vs. State
of Maharashtra, BA/2205/2024 (Bom), as alleged in the FIR, the
applicant Rafiq Khan was found in possession of 65 grams
mephedrone. The chemical analysis report specifically showed
that alongwith mephedrone, ketamine was also detected. This
Court, therefore, noted that the commercial quantity for the
contraband ketamine is 500 grams. Since some part of the
contraband was ketamine, therefore, it is observed that if it was
more than 15 grams, the quantity of mephedrone would go below
50 grams, which in turn would be intermediate quantity. The
applicant had no criminal antecedents. These facts inured to the
benefit of the applicant. Therefore, this Court directed his release
on bail. Thus both these Orders lien in favour of the Applicant.

10.      However, in the case in hand, the Applicant has two similar
criminal antecedents. Yet, having regard to the above noted
discrepancies and the fact that the Applicant is in jail for last one
year, he may be released on bail. Thus, I am persuaded to grant
bail. Hence, following Order is passed :-



                               Page 5 of 7
P.H. JAYANI                                                  901 BA1681.2026.DOC



         (i)      The Applicant – Arbaz Kasim Kisar Khan shall be
         released on bail in Special (NDPS) Case No.669/2025
         pending on the file of learned Special Judge (under the
         NDPS Act), Thane arising out of C.R.No.II-226/2025
         registered with Kashigaon Police Station, on his executing
         P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one or two
         sureties in the like amount.

         (ii)     The Applicant shall mark his attendance at Kashigaon
         Police Station, Thane on 1st and 16th day of each calender
         month between 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. till conclusion of the
         trial.

         (iii)    The Applicant shall regularly attend the proceedings
         before the jurisdictional Court unless exempted by the said
         Court, for the reasons to be recorded in writing.

         (iv)     The Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution
         evidence and shall not influence upon the prosecution
         witnesses to prevent them from deposing against them.

         (v)      The Applicant shall not indulge in identical activities
         for which he has been arraigned in this case.

         (vi)     On being released from jail, the Applicant shall
         furnish his contact number and residential address to the
         Investigating Officer and shall keep him updated, in case
         there is any change.

         (vii)    After release from jail, the Applicant shall not enter in
         Mumbai and Thane District for one year, except for marking
         his attendance in the police station and before the trial
         Court.

                                   Page 6 of 7
                    P.H. JAYANI                                               901 BA1681.2026.DOC



                             (viii) It is clarified that any observation made in the present
                             Order are for the purpose of deciding the present Bail
                             Application and should not influence the outcome of the
                             trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on the
                             merits of the case.

                    11.      Bail Application stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.



                                                      (SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)
       Digitally
       signed by
       PREETI
PREETI HEERO
HEERO JAYANI
JAYANI Date:
       2026.08.24
       18:14:55
       +0530




                                                     Page 7 of 7