Bombay High Court
KALUSINGH TERSINGH PAWARAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
- Bench
- SACHIN S DESHMUKH
Holding
The Court held that, due to doubts about the nature and commercial quantity of the seized material, the bail application should be allowed.
Summary
The applicant, Kalusingh Tersingh Pawara, was arrested after police seized 31.120 kg of half‑dried leaves, seeds and branches from a vehicle during a raid, alleging violation of Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii) and 20(b) of the NDPS Act. The defence argued that the seized material may not constitute "ganja" as defined under the Act and that the inclusion of seeds and leaves makes the quantity doubtful as a commercial quantity. The prosecution contended that the weight exceeded the commercial threshold of 20 kg and that the applicant had conscious possession. The Court examined the definition of "ganja" in Section 2(b) and (c) and noted the lack of evidence that flowering tops were seized, creating reasonable doubt about the commercial quantity. Consequently, the Court allowed the bail application, granting regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with stringent conditions to prevent tampering and repeat offences.
Issues considered
- Whether the seized material qualifies as "ganja" under Section 2(b) and (c) of the NDPS Act
- Whether the quantity seized constitutes a "commercial quantity" triggering the harsher provisions of Section 20(b)
- Whether regular bail should be granted in view of the alleged offence and the risk of evidence tampering
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 20(b), 20(b)(ii), 2(b), 2(c), 8(c)
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- commercial quantity
- ganja definition
- drug offence
- regular bail
- seizure
- evidence tampering
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:4631
37 BA No.2210.2025
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2210 OF 2025
KALUSINGH TERSINGH PAWARA
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
***
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Chaitanya Deshpande
APP for Respondents-State : Mr. D. B. Bhange
***
CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
Date : 2nd February, 2026
ORDER :-
1. The applicant has approached this Court seeking
regular bail in connection with FIR dated 03.04.2025 bearing Crime
No. 207 of 2025 registered with Dhule Taluka Police Station, Dist.
Dhule for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii),
20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
2. The prosecution case is that on 03.04.2025
approximately at 18:40 hours, the Police Authority executed a
coordinated raid at the Shere Panjab Hotel, situated on the
Mumbai-Agra Road. During the course of this raid, a vehicle bearing
Registration No. MH-09-ZH-7970 was intercepted by the authorities.
Upon conducting a search of the vehicle, several boxes sealed with
white adhesive tape were discovered within the boot space.
37 BA No.2210.2025
-2-
3. It is further alleged that the authorities proceeded to
open the boxes, which contained a substance consisting of half-
dried leaves, seeds, and branches emitting a strong odour. The
total weight of the seized material was confirmed to be 31.120 kg.
Following the seizure and an initial inquiry, the police registered FIR
No. 207 of 2025. The subsequent investigation into the recovery of
the contraband resulted in the arrest of the applicant.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime.
It will be difficult to establish whether the alleged contraband falls
within the meaning of "ganja" as contemplated under Section 2(iii)
(b) of the NDPS Act. As such, the quantification has no basis,
therefore, it can’t be regarded as quantity exceeds commercial
one.
5. The learned counsel for application further submits that
investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has been filed. The
applicant has been in continuous custody since arrest following the
incident on 03.04.2025. Given that the trial is likely to take a
considerable amount of time to conclude, further incarceration of
the application is unjustified. There are no antecedent against
applicant. As such, the counsel has prayed that the application be
37 BA No.2210.2025
-3-
allowed.
6. The learned APP vehemently opposed the application,
submitting that the contraband seized on 03.04.2025 weighs
31.120 kg, which significantly exceeds the commercial quantity
threshold of 20 kg. It is further submitted that the recovery was
made from the boot space of vehicle No. MH-09-ZH-7970,
establishing the applicant’s conscious possession of the prohibited
substance. The presence of half-dried leaves, seeds, and branches
with a strong odour confirms the nature of the substance, and the
procedural requirements of search and seizure were duly followed
by the Police Authority at the scene. If the applicant is enlarged on
bail, there is every possibility of tampering with the prosecution
evidence and repeat the offence of similar nature. Hence, the
learned APP prayed for rejection of the application.
7. Upon considering the submissions of both the sides and
perusing the material on record, including the charge-sheet, While
the prosecution alleges the seizure of 31.120 kg of contraband, the
seizure memo explicitly describes the contents as "half-dried
leaves, seeds, and branches." The commercial quantity in relation
to NDPS Act for contraband which is over and above 20 kg.
However, the expression ‘ganja’ defined in Section 2(b) and (c) as
the flowering and fruiting tops of the cannabis plant (excluding the
37 BA No.2210.2025
-4-
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.
8. The expression ‘ganja’ defined in the act 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.
9. In the present case, as is evident from the FIR, what
was found 31.120 kgs substance consisting of half-dried leaves,
seeds, and branches emitting a strong pungent odour. Since the
total weight includes a significant amount of excluded material,
there is a reasonable doubt as to whether the actual contraband
meets the "commercial quantity". In these circumstances, prima
facie, it is doubtful whether quantity can be said to be commercial
one.
10. There is no separate record to indicate that the quantity
of flowering plants. Therefore, at this juncture, 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 cultivation of flowering tops, it is doubtful
whether quantity seized can be regarded as exceeding the
37 BA No.2210.2025
-5-
commercial quantity.
11. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the request of the
applicant warrants consideration. The apprehension expressed by
the learned APP regarding tampering with the prosecution evidence
and the possibility of a repetition of the crime, can be adequately
taken care of by imposing stringent conditions.
12. Accordingly, the following order :-
ORDER
(I) Application is allowed.
(II) Applicant – Kalusingh Tersingh Pawara, 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. 207 of 2025 registered with Dhule Taluka Police
Station, Dist. Dhule for the offences punishable under
Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii), 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances 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
37 BA No.2210.2025
-6-
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…