Bombay High Court
NIHAL RAMBHAU GANGNEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Disposal
- APPLICATION ALLOWED
- Bench
- SACHIN S DESHMUKH
Holding
The Court held that, on a prima facie basis, the seizure does not satisfy the definition of "ganja" in commercial quantity, and therefore bail should be granted.
Summary
The applicant, Nihal Rambhau Gangne, was arrested after a police raid recovered approximately 12.186 kg of cannabis material comprising seeds, tops, stems and flowers. He sought regular bail, contending that the seized substance did not meet the definition of "ganja" under Section 2(b) of the NDPS Act and therefore could not be classified as a commercial quantity under Section 20(b). The State argued that the offence was serious, the quantity was large, and there was a risk of flight or repeat offence. The Court examined the statutory definition of "ganja", noted the absence of a specific quantification of flowering tops, and relied on the precedent of Laxman Shankar Ghankute v. State of Maharashtra, concluding that a prima facie doubt existed about the commercial nature of the seizure. Consequently, the Court exercised its discretion in favour of the applicant, granting bail with stringent conditions, and held that the detention was not justified.
Issues considered
- Whether the seized cannabis material qualifies as "ganja" under Section 2(b) of the NDPS Act for the purpose of invoking Section 20(b) commercial quantity.
- Whether the seriousness of the offence and alleged flight risk justify denial of bail.
- Whether imposing conditions is sufficient to mitigate any risk of tampering or repeat offence.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 20(b), 2(b), 8(c)
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- ganja definition
- commercial quantity
- drug offence
- presumption
- trial custody
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:431
936 BA No.2141.2025
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2141 OF 2025
NIHAL RAMBHAU GANGNE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
***
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Rajendra V. Dasalkar
APP for Respondents-State : Mr. P P. Dawalkar
***
CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
Date : 8th January, 2026
ORDER :-
1. The applicant has approached this Court seeking
regular bail in connection with FIR dated 08.10.2025 bearing Crime
No. 334 of 2025 registered with Ambajogai Rural Police Station,
Dist. Beed for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c)
and 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 07.10.2025,
acting on the secret information, a raid was conducted at the
applicant’s residence. During the said operation, approximately
12.186 kg of ganja (cannabis) was allegedly recovered and seized.
Following an initial inquiry, police registered FIR No. 334 of 2025,
leading to the investigation that resulted in the arrest of the
applicant.
936 BA No.2141.2025
-2-
3. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
applicant is falsely implicated in the offence and has no criminal
antecedents. It is further submitted that the the seized substance
includes seeds, tops, stems, flower etc. As such, it would be difficult
to establish whether the alleged contraband falls within the
definition of "ganja" as contemplated under Section 2(b) of the
NDPS Act. Hence, prayed that the application be allowed.
4. The learned APP opposed the application, submitting
that the offence is serious in nature and is found in possession of
the Ganja. Further expressed the apprehension, that there is a
possibility of applicant fleeing away or repeating an offence of a
similar nature, if released on bail. Consequently, the learned APP
prayed for the rejection of the application.
5. Considering the submissions of both the sides and
perusing the material on record, it is evident that the commercial
quantity in relation to NDPS Act for contraband is of and above 20
kg. However, the expression ‘ganja’ defined in Section 2(b) and (c)
explicitly includes only 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.
936 BA No.2141.2025
-3-
6. The expression ‘ganja’ thus, 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 FIR, what
was found 12.186 kgs of contraband from the spot also includes
seeds, tops, stems, flower etc. In these circumstances, prima facie,
it is doubtful whether quantity can be said to be commercial one.
8. There is no other material on record to ascertain the
weight of flowering or fruiting tops to constitute ganja. Therefore,
at this juncture, prima facie, it would be doubtful whether the
offence would be falling under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act. In
view of the aforesaid circumstances and in absence of record in
respect of possession of flowering tops, the same cannot be
regarded as alleged by the prosecution.
9. This Court in the case of Laxman Shankar Ghankute
Vs. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Bail Application No. 2583 of
2019), decided on 23.06.2021, 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 has been quantified by the prosecution.
936 BA No.2141.2025
-4-
10. Considering that the alleged contraband is recovered,
nothing remains to be recovered at the instance of the applicant.
The arrest of the applicant is effected on 08.10.2025 and since
then, the applicant is in judicial custody. As such, the detention of
the applicant as an under trial prisoner, in the circumstances of the
case does not seem to be either warranted or justifiable.
11. In that view of the matter, I am persuaded to exercise
the discretion in favor of the applicant. The learned APP's
apprehension about tampering repetition of similar nature of
offence, can be adequately taken care of by imposing stringent
conditions.
12. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the request of the
applicant warrants consideration. Accordingly, the following order :-
ORDER
(I) Application is allowed.
(II) Applicant – Nihal Rambhau Gangne be released on
regular bail on furnishing P.R. bond of Rs. 50,000/-
(Fifty Thousand Only) with one or two local solvent
sureties in the like amount, in connection with Crime
No. 334 of 2025 registered with Ambajogai Rural
Police Station, Dist. Beed for the offences punishable
under Sections 8(c) and 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances
936 BA No.2141.2025
-5-
Act, 1985, on the following conditions :-
(a) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
dissuade him from disclosing such facts either to the
Court or to any Police Officer.
(b) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence in any manner and shall cooperate the
learned Trial Judge in expeditious disposal of the trial
against him.
(c) The applicant shall not indulge in similar type of
offences in future.
(d) In case of breach of any of the conditions by the
applicant, it is open for the Prosecution to move this
Court seeking cancellation of bail.
(III) Needless to states that the observations rendered
herein are to the extent of this application and the
trial court shall not be influenced by the same.
(SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.)
Omkar Joshi
Checking your session…