Bombay High Court
ALISHER LALMOHAMAADD SOUDAGARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court granted bail to the applicant, holding that the procedural irregularities did not preclude release given the circumstances of prolonged detention.
Summary
The High Court considered the bail application of Alisher Lalmohammad Soudagar, accused under Sections 8(c), 21(c) and 22(c) of the NDPS Act in Crime No. 301 of 2023. The applicant argued that the prosecution had violated Section 52 of the NDPS Act by failing to have the inventory and sampling sealed by a magistrate, that there was an unjustified 65‑day delay in forwarding the seized contraband to the Central Forensic Laboratory, and that the seizure panchanama lacked the photographic and videographic documentation required under Section 103 of the BNS Regulations. Relying on the precedent set in Chandrakant Janardan Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra, the court examined whether these procedural lapses, together with the applicant’s prolonged pre‑trial detention of over three years, warranted denial of bail. Finding the procedural deficiencies significant but not fatal, and noting the length of incarceration, the court granted bail with conditions. The order directed the applicant’s immediate release on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety of the same amount and imposed reporting and non‑interference conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether non‑compliance with Section 52 of the NDPS Act regarding magistrate‑sealed inventory and sampling justifies denial of bail.
- Whether a 65‑day delay in sending seized contraband to the forensic laboratory is a ground to refuse bail.
- Whether the absence of photographic and videographic evidence as required by Section 103 of the BNS Regulations affects the bail decision.
- Whether the applicant’s prolonged pre‑trial detention outweighs the alleged procedural lapses in granting bail.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 21, 22, 52, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- procedural compliance
- Section 52
- evidence delay
- photographic evidence
- pre‑trial detention
- criminal procedure
Judgment
16-ba-2035-25.doc
Urmila Ingale
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2035 OF 2025
Mr. Alisher Lalmohammad Soudagar .. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
....................
Mr. Ali Kaashif Khan Deshmukh a/w Ms. Snigdha Khandelwal, and
Mr. Md. Farid, Advocates for Applicant.
Ms. Anuja Gotad, APP for Respondent-State.
Mr. Jivan Mane, PI, Crime Branch, Pune City, Yerawada Police
Station, present.
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : AUGUST 19, 2026
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Ali Kaashif Khan Deshmukh, learned Advocate for
Applicant and Ms. Anuja Gotad, learned APP for Respondent.
2. By this Bail Application, Applicant - accused is seeking
enlargement on bail in Crime No. 301 of 2023 registered with
Yerawada Police Station, Pune for the offences punishable under
Sections 8(c), 21(c) and 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (for short “NDPS Act”). Date of the incident is
07.05.2023.
3. The Applicant is indicted in an NDPS offence though
notwithstanding the fact that the Applicant is having three other
antecedents with him. The Applicant has raised four questions, namely,
1 of 4
16-ba-2035-25.doc
that the procedure as required for compliance of Section 52 of the
NDPS Act once the inventory and sampling is placed before the
Magistrate and if so done, it would have to bear the seal of the
Magistrate. The seal which is appended at page No.65 is that of the
Inspector of Police, PCB, Pune on the parcel and therefore, non-
compliance of the provisions of Section 52 has been argued. The
second reason is of humongous delay of 65 days in sending the alleged
seized contraband despite it having been seized and sent to the CFL.
Such delay of 65 days ought not to have been done rather immediate
action is required to be taken especially in view of the nature of the
contraband which is seized. Insofar as this reason is concerned, it may
have secondary or tertiary value in terms of merits. As usual, the
Applicant has also raised the bogey of the alleged seizure panchanama
not being supported by photography and videography as contemplated
under Section 103 of the BNS and Regulations. The Applicant has
referred to and relied upon the decision in the case of Chandrakant
Janardan Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra 1. In view of the non-
compliance of the aforesaid procedure laying aside the other issues
argued by the learned Advocate and more importantly, the fact that
the Applicant is in incarceration for more than three years and four
months and the ignominy of the trial not being completed in the near
future in the present case, I am inclined to allow the application for
1 2025 (3) High Court Cases, Bom.171.
2 of 4
16-ba-2035-25.doc
bail. The Bail Application stands granted.
4. In view of the above the following order is passed:-
(i) Applicant is directed to be immediately released from prison
in connection with Crime No. 301 of 2023;
(ii) Applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing P.R.
Bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) with one surety of
the like amount;
(iii) Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer at
Yerawada Police Station, Pune 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;
(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
3 of 4
16-ba-2035-25.doc
(viii) Any infraction of the conditions shall entail cancellation of
bail granted to the Applicant.
5. Needless to state that the above observations will not come in the
way of trial as they are prima facie in nature based on the submissions
made and the material placed before this Court.
6. Bail Application is allowed and disposed of in the above
terms.
Urmila Ingale [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally signed
HARSHADA by HARSHADA
HANUMANT
HANUMANT SAWANT
SAWANT Date: 2026.08.19
19:49:34 +0530
4 of 4
Checking your session…