KARAMSING GYANSING PAWARAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:8761
                                                            Bail Appln.No.2123/2025
                                           :: 1 ::




                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                          BAIL APPLICATION NO.2123 OF 2025


            Karamsing Gyansing Pawara                … APPLICANT

                    VERSUS

            The State of Maharashtra                 … RESPONDENT

                                              .......
            Mr. Suniket A. Kulkarni, Advocate for applicant
            Mrs. P.V. Diggikar, 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.131/2025, registered with Shirpur Taluka

            Police Station, District Dhule for the offences punishable under

            Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c), 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and

            Psychotropic Substances Act.


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

            information that the applicant has kept contraband article dry Ganja
                                                  Bail Appln.No.2123/2025
                                  :: 2 ::


in his residential house situated in his field in Asrapani Shivar, a

raid was conducted and when the team reached the spot, in the

house situated in the field, the applicant started running seeing the

police personnel. The police chased him and took into custody. On

inquiry with him about the contraband article, he gave evasive

replies. Therefore, on taking search of the house of the applicant,

in presence of panchas, Ganja was found in 10 bundles and 10

gunny bags and 3 tin boxes, totally weighing 360 Kgs., valued at

Rs.25,20,000/- approximately.


3.             Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, there is

no prima facie sufficient evidence to connect the applicant with the

crime in question. The investigation is complete and charge sheet

is filed.   The muddemal is seized and further custody of the

applicant is not warranted. The compliance of mandates of the

NDPS Act are not complied with. As such, prayed to allow the

application.


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

application, contending that the offence is serious and 360 Kgs. of

contraband article has been seized. Hence, prayed to reject the

application.
                                                Bail Appln.No.2123/2025
                                :: 3 ::


5.         Upon considering the submissions of both the sides and

perusing the material on record, including the charge-sheet,

indicates that, the applicant is apprehended by the police on the

basis of secret information. During the raid, the police discovered

that the applicant was in possession of 360 Kgs. of psychotropic

substance. Consequently, the same were seized, samples were

taken and sent for further analysis.


6.         The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Prasanta Kumar

Sarkar Vs. Ashis Chatterjee [(2010)14 SCC 496], has held that

the mechanical grant of bail reflects non-application of mind, and

outlined eight crucial factors to be considered, including reasonable

ground for belief in guilt, nature of evidence and possibility of

justice being thwarted.


7.         Equally, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of UP

through CBI Vs. Amaramani Tripathi [(2005) 8 SCC 21], has

held that the Court must evaluate the prima facie evidence showing

the applicant's involvement. If such evidence is credible and

supports the accusations, bail may be refused. As stated earlier,

the applicant was found in possession with the contraband.


8.         The Honourable Apex Court in the case of Mahipal Vs.
                                                Bail Appln.No.2123/2025
                               :: 4 ::


Rajesh Kumar and Ors. (AIR 2020 SC 670) has laid down the

principle that bail can be refused when the material produced by

prosecution establishes a clear prima facie cace. The Court should

not conduct a mini-trial; it should only examine whether the

available evidence links the accused to the alleged offence.


9.         Considering the material available, a clear prima facie

case is made out showing the involvement of the accused. Equally,

the Hon’ble Apex Court has consistently reiterated that when

considering bail application/s in serious offences, the Court must

treat vital considerations like the nature of the charge and the

nature of the evidence as paramount.


10.        Similarly, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Ram

Govind Upadhyay Vs. Sudarshan Singh [(2002) 3 SCC 598],

has held that a judicial discretion in granting bail must not be

exercised whimsically, especially in heinous / serious offences.


11.        Equally, the submissions put forth by the learned A.P.P.

lends support to the observations rendered in Narcotic Control

Bureau Vs. Kashif (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held

that the lapse or delayed compliance of procedural irregularity with

Section 52(a) would not entitle the accused to be enlarged on bail.
                                                  Bail Appln.No.2123/2025
                                 :: 5 ::


As such, the applicant cannot seek benefit of the same.


12.         In the present case, the FIR indicates that 360 Kgs. of

ganja was discovered. Similarly, the Certificate of Inventory issued

under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act confirms that the aggregate

weight of the psychotropic substance is 360 Kgs. Consequently,

the Inventory Certificate indicates that the accused was in

conscious possession of cannabis.


13.         Prima facie, it appears from the record that, the

contraband seized at the instance of the applicant exceeds the

commercial threshold of 20 Kg. Given the massive scale of the

seizure, the involvement of applicant in trafficking network is prima

facie apparent.    Consequently, relying upon aforesaid facts and

principles, this Court does not find merit in the application.


14.         The record indicating the presence of flowering or

fruiting tops. Consequently, at this stage, the comission of offence

appears to fall under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act has taken

place. Considering these circumstances, a prima facie case exists

against the applicant.


15.         In view of the aforesaid observations and having regard

to the gravity of the offence, I do not find merit in the present
                                                 Bail Appln.No.2123/2025
                                :: 6 ::


application and accordingly, the bail application is rejected.




                                    (SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.)


fmp/-