Bombay High Court

LALITKUMAR DAYANAND SHARMA AND ANRversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided: 10 April 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: SHIVKUMAR DIGE

Holding

Bail was granted to the accused on the ground of long pre‑trial incarceration.

Summary

The applicants were arrested on 19 December 2020 for possession of 34.404 kg of charas, a commercial quantity, under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii) and 29 of the NDPS Act. They have been in custody for about five years and three months without the trial commencing. The prosecution opposed bail, citing the large quantity, alleged antecedents and risk of absconding or witness tampering. The defence argued that the prolonged pre‑trial detention violated the principle of liberty and relied on recent Supreme Court decisions granting bail on the ground of long incarceration. The Court, noting the absence of trial progress and the precedents, granted regular bail to both applicants on a personal bond of Rs.30,000 each with standard conditions, while directing the trial court to proceed on merits independently.

Issues considered

Whether bail can be granted to accused of possession of commercial quantity of charas under the NDPS Act despite the seriousness of the offence.
Whether prolonged pre‑trial detention of over five years justifies bail on the ground of long incarceration.
Whether the risk of absconding or witness tampering outweighs the right to bail.

Legislation cited

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 20(b)(ii), 29, 8(c)

Subjects

bail
pre‑trial detention
NDPS Act
commercial quantity
long incarceration
witness tampering
anti‑terrorist squad

Judgment

                                                                          1-BA-1794-2024 (CR).doc


                      Shubhada S Kadam


                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                  CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1794 OF 2024

                      1. Lalitkumar Dayanand Sharma
                      2. Kaulsingh Rupsing Singh                      ...Applicants
                      versus
                      The State of Maharashtra                        ...Respondent
                      _________________________________________________________________

                      Mr. Taraq Sayed along with Ms. Ashwini Achari and Mr. Anish Pereira,
                      Advocate for Applicants.
                      Ms. Ranjana D. Humane, APP for Respondent-State. APP for Respondent-
                      State.
                      PSI-Sachin Shinde, ATS, Vikhroli, Mumbai, present.
                      _________________________________________________________________

                                                         CORAM      :   SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
                                                         DATE       :   10th APRIL, 2026.
                      P.C. :

                      1.         By this application, the applicants are seeking regular bail in

                      Crime No. 602 of 2020 registered with Pune Railway Police Station,

                      District Pune, which was subsequently transferred to the Anti-Terrorist

                      Squad, Pune and numbered as Crime No.13 of 2020 for the offences

                      punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs

                      and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

                      2.         It is prosecution's case that on 19th December 2020, on secret
SHUBHADA
SHANKAR               information, the police apprehended the applicants and co-accused and
KADAM
Digitally signed by   found in their possession a total of 34.404 kg of charas, out of which
SHUBHADA
SHANKAR KADAM
Date: 2026.04.15
18:28:52 +0530



                                                      Page 1 of 4
                                                      1-BA-1794-2024 (CR).doc


Shubhada S Kadam


22.492 kg was individually recovered from applicant No. 1 and 11.912 kg

of charas was recovered from applicant No. 2.

3.         It is contention of learned counsel for the applicants that the

applicants are behind bars for around five years and three months, yet the

trial has not commenced. He submitted that as per the view of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in Chintan Rajubhai Panseriya versus State of Maharashtra in

SLP(Cri) No.439 of 2026, Rabi Prakash versus State of Odisha in SLP (Cri)

No.4169 of 2023 and Ankur Chaudhary versus State of Madhya Pradesh in

SLP(Cri) No.4648 of 2024, the applicants are entitled to bail on the

ground of long incarceration. Learned counsel further submitted that the

minimum punishment provided for the offence committed by the

applicants is 10 years, while the maximum punishment is 20 years.

Considering the long incarceration, the applicants are entitled to bail, and

requested to allow the application.

3.         It is contention of learned APP that commercial quantity of

charas was found in the possession of the applicants. Applicant No. 1 has

antecedents of a similar nature. If the applicants are released on bail, they

may abscond or threaten the prosecution witnesses, and requested to

reject the application. She has relied on Union of India versus Vigin K.

Varghese 2025 INSC 1316.




                                 Page 2 of 4
                                                     1-BA-1794-2024 (CR).doc


Shubhada S Kadam


4.          It is contention of learned counsel for the applicants that

applicant No. 1 has no antecedents prior to the present crime, and while in

custody, the applicant was arrested in another crime, so it cannot be said

that he has antecedents, and he has been released on bail for the said

offence.

5.          I have heard both learned counsel, perused charge- sheet and

documents produced on record. The applicants are behind bars for around

five years and three months. There is no progress in the trial. The Hon’ble

Apex Court in Chintan Rajubhai Panseriya versus State of Maharashtra,

Rabi Prakash versus State of Odisha and Ankur Chaudhary versus State of

Madhya Pradesh(supra), has granted bail to the accused therein on the

ground of long incarceration. Considering these facts, the applicants are

entitled to bail on the ground of long incarceration and I pass following

order:

                                  ORDER

         (i) The applicants be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 602 of 2020

            registered with Pune Railway Police Station, District Pune,

            which was subsequently transferred to the Anti-Terrorist

            Squad, Pune and numbered as Crime No.13 of 2020, on

            executing P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- each with one or

            two sureties in the like amount.


                                 Page 3 of 4
                                                      1-BA-1794-2024 (CR).doc


Shubhada S Kadam


       (ii) The applicants shall attend the concerned police station as and

           when required.

       (iii) The applicants shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt

           to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any

           person concerned with the case.

           The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is

accordingly disposed of.

6.         It is made clear that the above observations are made only for

the purpose of granting bail and the Trial Court shall decide the case on its

own merits in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the observations

made in this order.

7.         All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.



                                               (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)




                                 Page 4 of 4

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…