Bombay High Court
AHTESHAM ISRAR ANSARIversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- SHIVKUMAR DIGE
Holding
The Court held that bail should be granted, subject to a personal bond and sureties, as the applicant had no antecedents, had been detained for an extended period, and the prosecution had not produced conclusive evidence of his involvement.
Summary
The applicant, Aahtesham Israr Ansari, applied for regular bail in a case where police, acting on secret information, seized 202 grams of Mephedrone from his residence and alleged that he sold the drug and received proceeds in his bank account. He is charged under Sections 8(c) and 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 3(25) of the Arms Act and Section 37(1) read with 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act. The applicant has been in custody for more than one year and four months, has no prior criminal record, and contends that the prosecution has not produced concrete evidence linking him to the alleged transactions. The State argued that bank records demonstrate his involvement and that he might abscond if released. The Court, noting the lack of antecedents, the prolonged pre‑trial detention, and the need for evidence to establish the alleged participation, decided to grant bail subject to a personal bond of Rs.30,000 and sureties, with standard conditions. The order expressly states that the trial court will decide the case on its merits independent of the bail order.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a case involving alleged offences under the NDPS Act, Arms Act and Maharashtra Police Act despite the seriousness of the charges.
- Whether the existence of bank transactions indicating receipt of money constitutes sufficient ground to deny bail on the basis of risk of absconding.
- Whether the applicant's prolonged pre‑trial detention and lack of antecedents warrant the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act, 1959 — s. 3(25)
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 22(c), 8(c)
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- narcotics
- Mephedrone
- Arms Act
- pre‑trial detention
- surety
- criminal procedure
Judgment
20-BA-2254-2025 (CR).doc
Shubhada S Kadam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.2254 OF 2025
Aahtesham Israr Ansari …..Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ….Respondent
_________________________________________________________________
Mr. Aniket Nikam with Ms. Abhilasha Pawar, Mr. Sumit Patil and Mr. Amit
Icham in Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. Prashant P. Jadhav, APP for Respondent No.1-State.
API-Nitinkumar Naik, ANC-2, Crime Branch Pune City, present.
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 6th FEBRUARY, 2026.
P.C. :
1. By this application, the applicant is seeking regular bail in
Crime No. 1039 of 2024 registered with Kondhwa Police Station, District
Pune, for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) and 22(c) of the the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Sections 3(25) of
the Arms Act and Section 37(1) read with 135 of the Maharashtra Police
Act.
2. It is prosecution’s case that on 6th September 2024, on secret
information, the police took search of the house of the applicant and in his
house, police found 202 grams of Mephedrone. It is alleged that the
SHUBHADA
SHANKAR
KADAM applicant and co-accused-Sameer were selling Mephedrone to other
Digitally signed by
SHUBHADA
SHANKAR KADAM
Date: 2026.02.10 persons and were receiving amounts in the bank accounts of the applicant.
16:04:06 +0530
Page 1 of 3
20-BA-2254-2025 (CR).doc
Shubhada S Kadam
3. It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the
applicant is behind bars for more than one year and four months. The
applicant has no antecedents and there is no recovery at his instance. The
allegations against the applicant are that he would sell the Mephedrone to
the customers and would receive the amount. Hence, requested to allow
the application.
4. It is contention of learned APP that the bank account
transactions show that the amount was credited in the bank account of the
applicant. This shows involvement of the applicant in the present crime. If
the applicant is released on bail, the applicant may abscond.
5. I have heard both learned counsel and perused charge-sheet
and documents produced on record. The allegation against the applicant
is that applicant has received money by selling Mephedrone. To prove it,
evidence is required. The applicant has no antecedents and is behind bars
for more than one year and four months. Considering these facts, I pass the
following order.
ORDER
(i) The applicant be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 1039 of 2024
registered with Kondhwa Police Station, District Pune, on
executing P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one or two
sureties in the like amount.
Page 2 of 3
20-BA-2254-2025 (CR).doc
Shubhada S Kadam
(ii) The applicant shall attend the concerned police station as and
when required.
(iii) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to
influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person
concerned with the case.
The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is
accordingly disposed of.
6. It is made clear that the above observations are made only for
the purpose of granting bail and the Trial Court shall decide the case on its
own merits in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the observations
made in this order.
7. All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 3 of 3
Checking your session…