DHAVLIRAM BARKU CHARAWANDEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:7273
                                                            Bail Appln.No.181/2026
                                           :: 1 ::




                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                           BAIL APPLICATION NO.181 OF 2026


            Dhavliram s/o Barku Charawande                 … APPLICANT

                    VERSUS

            The State of Maharashtra                       … RESPONDENT

                                             .......
            Mr. V.S. Wakale, Advocate for applicant
            Mr. A.R. Kale, A.P.P. for respondent – State
                                            ....…

                                   CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
                                   DATE     : 17th FEBRUARY, 2026

            PER COURT :


            1.         The applicant seeks release on regular bail in

            connection with Crime No.659/2025, registered with Ambad Police

            Station, District Jalna for the offences punishable under Section

            20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.


            2.         The prosecution case is that, on the basis of secret

            information received by the Police Station, in land Gat No.787,

            situated at village Kauchalwadi, Ganja like trees were found to
                                                 Bail Appln.No.181/2026
                                   :: 2 ::


have been seen along side the cotton and Toor crop, in which the

applicant was found, who on inquiry, told that the field belongs to

him. The leaves of the Ganja trees were found to have been kept

so as to dry the same and the Ganja trees were seen cut aside.

Some Ganjaa trees were seen standing in the field totally weighing

350.585 Kgs.


3.         Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, the

applicant has been falsely implicated in the case and there is no

supporting evidence about cultivation by the applicant.        All the

prosecution witnesses are Government servants. The quantification

is is improperly done. The investigation is almost complete and as

such, further custody of the applicant is unwarranted. As such,

prayed to allow the application.


4.         Per contra, learned A.P.P. vehemently opposed the

application, contending that, huge quantity of the contraband article

has been found and the offence is serious. Charge sheet is yet to

be filed. Therefore, the applicant does not deserve to be released

on bail.


5.         Upon considering the submissions of both sides and
                                                 Bail Appln.No.181/2026
                               :: 3 ::


perusing the material on record, including the charge sheet,

indicates that the applicant is an agriculturist who planted the

alleged contraband alongside Cotton and Toor crop.                The

commercial quantity in relation to the NDPS Act is considered to be

20 Kg. or above.      However, the expression “Ganja” specifically

defines in Section 2(b) and (c) as the flowering and fruiting tops of

the cannabis plant (excluding the seeds and leaves when not

accompanied by the tops), by whatever name they may be known

or designated, and any mixture, with or without any neutral

material, of any of the above forms of cannabis or any drink

prepared therefrom.


6.         The expression “Ganja: makes it abundantly clear that it

refers specifically to the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis

plant, excluding the seeds and leaves when they are not

accompanied by the tops.


7.         In the present case, as is evident from the F.I.R., the

seizure weighed 350.585 Kgs., which constituted the entire

cannabis plants in its entirety.     There is no separate record

available to indicate the specific quantity of only the flowering and

fruiting tops, the precise components legally constitute “Ganja”
                                                  Bail Appln.No.181/2026
                                :: 4 ::


under the Act (excluding seeds and leaves).


8.          Therefore, at this juncture, it remains doubtful whether

the alleged offence properly falls under Section 20(b) of the NDPS

Act. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, and in absence of a

distinct record quantifying solely the possession of the flowering

tops, prima facie, it is highly questionable whether the total quantity

seized can reliably be regarded as exceeding the commercial

quantity threshold.


9.          In case of Laxman Shankar Ghankute Vs. State of

Maharashtra (Criminal Bail Application No.2583 of 2019), this

Court, on23/6/2021, observed that, because the seizure consisted

of whole plants without a specific quantification of flowering tops,

there was doubt as to whether the weight could be classified as

“commercial quantity”.


10.         Further, the applicant is old aged agriculturist and

suffering from venereal disease and serious fungal contagious

disease, which is an infectious illness caused by germs, which

spreads easily from person to person through direct contact,

shared objects or airborne droplets like common cold, flue, COVID-
                                                   Bail Appln.No.181/2026
                                 :: 5 ::


19 or measles, requiring hygiene and sometimes vaccines to

prevent outbreaks.


11.           In view of the aforesaid reasons, the request of the

applicant warrants consideration. Accordingly, the following order :


                              ORDER


(i)       Bail Application is allowed.

(ii)      The applicant Dhavliram Barku Charawande be released
          on bail on furnishing P.B. and S.B. of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees
          Fifty Thousand) with one solvent surety of the like amount
          in the above crime, on the conditions that :

        (a)     The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution
                witnesses in any way.

        (b)     The applicant shall remain present on each date,
                unless exempted by the trial Court.

(iii)     Needless to state that, the observations rendered herein
          are confined to the present application, and the trial Court
          shall decide the trial on its own merits and in accordance
          with law.



                                     (SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.)

fmp/-