Bombay High Court
SHIVA @ SHIVAJI AMBADAS SHINDEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
Bail is granted to the applicant, subject to conditions, as the prosecution has not made out a prima facie case.
Summary
Shiva @ Shivaji Ambadas Shinde, accused No.1 in a Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) case (CR No. 460 of 2023), sought enlargement of bail after being in custody for nearly three years without charge framing. The prosecution recovered 4.87 kg of MD from a rented shed, not owned by the applicant, and alleged that he supplied raw material for its manufacture, citing a payment of Rs.5,000 each to two accused. The applicant contended that he runs a legitimate chemical supply business in his wife's name, supplying chemicals to various entities with proper invoices and GST bills, and denied knowledge of any illicit use. The court observed that the prosecution had not prima facie established the applicant's knowledge or participation in the contraband manufacture and noted the prolonged pre‑trial detention. Consequently, the court granted bail on a personal bond of Rs.50,000 with conditions, emphasizing that the order is limited to bail and does not address the merits of the case.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused under Sections 8(c), 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act when the prosecution has not established a prima facie case of knowledge.
- Whether the prolonged pre‑trial detention without framing of charges warrants enlargement of bail.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 22(c), 29, 8(c)
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- pre‑trial detention
- prima facie evidence
- chemical supply business
- Maharashtra
- criminal procedure
Judgment
Digitally
signed by
MEERA
MEERA MAHESH 38-ba-1684-26.doc
MAHESH JADHAV
JADHAV Date:
2026.09.22
11:30:26
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO.1684 OF 2026
Shiva @ Shivaji Ambadas Shinde .. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
....................
Mr. Karan Lalit Jain, Advocate for Applicant.
Ms. Shilpa Talhar, APP for Respondent - State.
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 21, 2026
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Jain, learned Advocate for Applicant and Ms.
Talhar, learned APP for Respondent - State.
2. By this Bail Application, Applicant-accused No.1 is seeking
enlargement on bail in C.R. No. 460 of 2023 registered with Nashik
Road Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c),
22(c), 29 of the Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
(for short "NDPS Act").
3. Applicant is arraigned as accused person out of 10 accused
persons in the present crime. He is nomenclatured as Accused No.1.
The prosecution has recovered a substantial quantity of the contraband
substance MD of 4.870 kg from a rented shed, admittedly not
belonging to the Applicant. However, a statement on page No. 75 is
taken recourse to by the learned prosecutor by pointing out that the
person who had given the shed on rent had given an amount of
Meera Jadhav 1 of 4
38-ba-1684-26.doc
Rs.10,000/- which was split between two of the accused persons i.e.
Rs.5,000/- each. Admittedly, in so far as the present Applicant is
concerned, he was already in custody at the time when the present
incident had occurred. The Applicant is arrested on 30 th November
2023 in the present crime and he is in custody for the past 2 years and
11 months. The charge has also not been framed. Five of the ten
accused persons have already been enlarged on bail.
4. A strong circumstance has been argued by the learned
Advocate for the Applicant that the Applicant is running a lawful
business in the name of his wife and had supplied the raw material for
the purpose of manufacturing the alleged contraband according to the
prosecution. However, the Applicant has refuted this case of
prosecution because he has been supplying the said raw material
alongwith invoices and GST bills to other vendors also for manufacture
of fertilizers and the said business is in the name and proprietary
concern of his wife having been looked after by the Applicant.
5. Prima facie, the material which is placed on record shows
that the Applicant has been indulging in the business of supply of
chemicals in the name of Mayuri Enterprises, which is a proprietary
concern standing in the name of his wife from 2022 onwards and has
been supplying chemicals to multiple business entities, schools and
colleges. The factum of knowledge of the Applicant having supplied
Meera Jadhav 2 of 4
38-ba-1684-26.doc
the raw material for the end use of the same to manufacture the
alleged contraband is required to be proved by the prosecution prima
facie. That not having been done, for the purpose of bail, arguable case
is made out by the learned Advocate for the Applicant for grant of bail.
6. In view of the above the following order is passed:-
(i) Applicant - Shiva @ Shivaji Ambadas Shinde is directed
to be immediately released from 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/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand only) with one or two sureties in 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;
Meera Jadhav 3 of 4
38-ba-1684-26.doc
(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.
7. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are
limited for the purpose of granting bail only and I have not made any
observations on merits of the case. The trial shall be adjudicated on
the strength of the evidence led and strictly on its own merits being
uninfluenced with any of the prima facie observations made
hereinabove in this order.
8. Bail Application is allowed and disposed of in the above
terms.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Meera Jadhav 4 of 4
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.