Bombay High Court
SUNNY ARUN PAGAREversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
Bail is granted to the applicant subject to specified conditions.
Summary
The Bombay High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by Sunny Arun Pagare, who was charged under Sections 8(c), 22(c), 25, 27A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The applicant challenged the validity of three seizure panchanamas that recorded recoveries of 52.5 kg, 2.11 kg and 6.5 kg of MD, arguing procedural irregularities and lack of documentary evidence linking the third recovery to him. The State contended that the timings of the seizures were merely half an hour apart and that the recoveries were lawful. The Court found the first seizure prima facie doubtful, noted the absence of a nexus for the second and third recoveries, and considered the applicant's prolonged pre‑trial incarceration of over two years and nine months. Consequently, the Court granted bail with stringent conditions, emphasizing that the order does not decide the merits of the trial.
Issues considered
- The legality and procedural validity of the three seizure panchanamas recorded against the applicant.
- Whether the recoveries of narcotic drugs are linked to the applicant for the purpose of bail.
- Whether the applicant's prolonged pre‑trial detention justifies grant of bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 22(c), 25, 27A, 29, 8(c)
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- seizure panchanama
- procedural irregularities
- pre‑trial detention
- criminal procedure
Judgment
34.BA.2078.2025.odt
Sufiyan Syed – PA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2078 OF 2025
Sunny Arun Pagare .. Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
....................
Mr. Taraq Sayed a/w Ms. Ashwini A., Ms. Anish Pereira, Mr. Aryan
K. and Adv. Devashish Dhanjode, Advocates for the Applicant.
Ms. S. G. Talhar, APP for the Respondent-State.
PSI, Mr. Sunil Bidkar, Nashik Road Police Station is present.
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : AUGUST 19, 2026
P. C.:
1. Heard Mr. Sayed, learned Advocate for Applicant and Ms.
Talhar, learned APP for Respondent-State.
2. This is an Application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking Bail in connection with C.R. No.425 of
2023 registered with Nashik Road Police Station for offences
punishable under Sections 8(c), 22(c), 25, 27A and 29 of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
3. This matter was heard fully yesterday and today it was kept for
submissions and response of the learned APP on taking further
instructions with regard to the questions raised by the Court qua the
arrest of the Applicant and more specifically with regard to the three
1 of 6
34.BA.2078.2025.odt
seizure panchanamas qua the Applicant which were carried out by the
prosecution on 22.10.2023, 24.10.2023 and 26.10.2023.
4. With regard to the case of the prosecution of having recovered
52.5 kg MD, 2.11 Kg MD and 6.5 Kg MD from the Applicant. These
three statements are appended at Page Nos.269, 307 and 428 and with
the able assistance of Mr. Sayed and equally the learned Prosecutor, I
have perused the same.
5. The prosecution has apprehended atleast 23 persons as Accused
in the present crime out of which seven are absconding or wanted
whereas the rest of them have been apprehended. Six out of the total
Accused persons who are apprehended have been enlarged on bail.
Case of the Applicant is primarily on the issue of recovery not been in
consonance with the statutory provisions of law.
6. Mr. Sayed has persuaded the Court to consider that the first
recovery attributed to the Applicant vide the seizure panchanama
appended at Page No.269 is rendered prima-facie doubtful. He has
referred to and relied upon the decision rather observations of this
Court while determining Bail Application No. 4108 of 2024 in the case
of another co-accused who has been enlarged on bail wherein there is
a categorical observation that the timings of the panchanama carried
out by the prosecution team virtually overlaps and therefore the same
2 of 6
34.BA.2078.2025.odt
prosecution team cannot be considered to have remained present at
more than two different places for carrying out the seizure
panchanama which in any event under the statutory provisions is an
elaborate exercise.
7. Ms. Talhar on taking instructions and going through the papers
has however argued that there is distinction and difference of half an
hour that should be considered by the Court and more specifically so
in view of the humongous recovery made qua the present Applicant in
the first instance itself.
8. I have considered the submissions advanced by Ms. Talhar but
in view of the discrepancy which has been pointed out and of which
cognizance has been already taken by this Court in a judicial order, I
am unable to accept the same. Secondly, Mr. Sayed would argue that
after two days a second recovery has been shown qua the Applicant
but it is shown from the premises of a third party lady which has
virtually no nexus whatsoever with the Applicant. There is no
documentary evidence placed on record to that effect to substantiate
the prosecution case save and except the statement of lady who was
residing in the said premises who has contended that she had some
nexus with regard to a leave and license agreement but on which no
documentary evidence is gathered.
3 of 6
34.BA.2078.2025.odt
9. Next she would argue that the third recovery attributed to the
Applicant on the basis of memorandum signed by the Applicant under
Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1873 and if perused it is seen
that it is not shown therein that the Applicant had any conscious
knowledge of the third contraband recovered two days thereafter. He
would also submit that the premises with regard to the third recovery
is a gala which belongs to a third party call Ankush Chavan.
10. He would also draw my attention to the statement recorded on
page No. 448 which refers to the company called Swami Samarth
Chemicals of which even otherwise according to the prosecution some
of the accused persons were involved in manufacturing
contraband/drug allegedly. At this stage, what is argued by the
learned Advocate for the Applicant prima-facie deserves consideration
and more specifically so when there is no specific answer forthcoming
from the prosecution.
11. The Applicant is indicted in an NDPS offence and has been in
incarceration for the past more than 2 years and 9 months. Ignominy
of the trial been commenced and on concluded is writ large and the
Applicant cannot be kept in incarceration forever.
4 of 6
34.BA.2078.2025.odt
12. Even otherwise, considering the parity as also the aforesaid
reasons. Applicant is enlarged on bail on the following terms and
conditions :
(i) Applicant is directed to be immediately released
from prison in connection with Crime No. 425 of
2025;
(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
concerned Police Station once every month on the
first Monday 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;
5 of 6
34.BA.2078.2025.odt
(vii) Applicant shall not influence with any of the
witnesses or tamper with the evidence in any
manner;
(viiii) 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
(ix) Any infraction of the conditions shall entail
cancellation of bail granted to the Applicant.
13. These observations made only for the purpose of granting bail to
the Applicant and shall not be construed as any decision on merits and
the trial shall be progressed on its own merits in accordance with law
and uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.
14. Bail Application is allowed and disposed of in the above
terms.
Sufiyan Syed – PA [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally signed by
HARSHADA HARSHADA
HANUMANT
HANUMANT SAWANT
SAWANT Date: 2026.08.19
19:52:19 +0530
6 of 6
Checking your session…