Bombay High Court
SOHEL KARIM SAYYED ALIAS SONU MANSEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Disposal
- Withdrawn
Holding
The Court rejected all the bail applications, finding sufficient prima facie evidence of involvement and risk, and held that the procedural issue of written grounds of arrest did not merit bail.
Summary
The Bombay High Court heard several bail applications filed by accused persons alleged to be part of an organised syndicate trafficking codeine‑based cough syrup under the NDPS Act. The prosecution presented evidence of procurement, financial transactions and coordination among the accused, while the applicants argued lack of written grounds of arrest and absence of direct material linking them to the seized contraband. The Court examined Supreme Court precedents on the requirement of written grounds of arrest, noting that the arrests occurred before those judgments and therefore the procedural defect could not be a ground for bail. Considering the seriousness of the offence, the prima facie involvement of the applicants, the applicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, the Court found no sufficient reason to grant bail. Consequently, all the bail applications were rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether the absence of written grounds of arrest, as mandated by Supreme Court judgments, warrants bail in the present NDPS case.
- Whether the material on record establishes a prima facie case of involvement of the applicants in the organised narcotics conspiracy.
- Whether the risk of tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or committing further offences justifies denial of bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 238
- Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 — s. 18(c), 27(b)
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985 — s. 21, 21(b), 22(b), 22(c), 25, 27-A, 29, 37, 8(c)
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- organized crime
- codeine trafficking
- conspiracy
- Section 37
- written grounds of arrest
- public health
- narcotics
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:23849
935-BA-2540-25 (+6) check.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
935 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 574 OF 2026
Rizwan Khan Rashid Khan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra
WITH
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 184 OF 2026
Sayyed Arbaj Sayyed Feroj Alias Arbaj Khan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra
WITH
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2540 OF 2025
Sameer Yunus Shaikh
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra
WITH
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 233 OF 2026
Sohel Karim Sayyed Alias Sonu Manse
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra
WITH
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 467 OF 2026
1. Avinash Ramkrushna Patil
2. Rupesh S/o. Ramkrushna Patil
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra
WITH
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 183 OF 2026
Sohel Salim Hilabi
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra
935-BA-2540-25 (+6) check.odt
2
WITH
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 187 OF 2026
Javed Khan Rauf Khan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra
......
Mr. C.C. Deshpande, Advocate h/f Mr. Suyog S. Rathi, Advocate for
Applicant in BA/2540/2025
Mr. R.R.Kakani, Advocate for Applicant in BA/574/2026
Mr. V.S. Wakale, Advocate for Applicants in BA/184/2026, BA/183/2026
and BA/187/2026
Mr. S.M. Nannaware, Advocate for Applicant in BA/233/2026
Mr. R.M. Bhosle, Advocate for Applicants in BA/467/2026
Mr. K.K. Naik, AGP for Respondent-State in all BAs
......
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 17 JUNE, 2026
PER COURT :
1. Learned the learned counsel for the respective applicants and the
learned APP for respondent-State in all the applications.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for some time and upon this Court
expressing disinclination to grant relief to applicant Rizwan Khan Rashid
Khan in Bail Application No.574 of 2026, applicant Sohel S/o Karim Sayyed
@ Sonu Manse in Bail Application No.233 of 2026 and applicant No.1
Avinash Ramkrushna Patil in Bail Application No.467 of 2026, the learned
counsel appearing for the respective applicants seek leave to withdraw the
applications.
3. Leave granted.
935-BA-2540-25 (+6) check.odt
3
4. Bail Application Nos.233 of 2026 and 574 of 2026 stand dismissed as
withdrawn. Bail Application No.467 of 2026 stands dismissed as withdrawn
insofar as applicant No.1 – Avinash Ramkrushna Patil is concerned. I,
therefore, proceed to decide Bail Application No.2540 of 2025, Bail
Application Nos.184 of 2026, 183 of 2026, 187 of 2026 and Bail Application
No.467 of 2026 to the extent of applicant No.2.
5. By these applications, the applicants seek their release on bail in
connection with Crime No.279 of 2025 registered with Waluj Police Station,
District Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, for the offences punishable under
Sections 8(c), 21, 21(b), 22(b), 22(c), 25, 27-A and 29 of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, Section 238 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 18(c) and 27(b) of the Drugs
and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
6. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 12.09.2025, the police
received specific secret information that a well-organized racket was
operating for illegal sale and distribution of intoxicating cough syrup
containing Codeine Phosphate to young boys and girls, particularly students.
It was learnt that accused Avinash Ramkrushna Patil and Rupesh
Ramkrushna Patil had procured a consignment of Codeine-based cough
syrup from Rayyan Medical Stores, Uttar Pradesh, and the same was to be
delivered through VRL Logistics at Waluj. Acting upon the said information,
the police laid a trap.
935-BA-2540-25 (+6) check.odt
4
7. Prosecution case in brief is that at about 2.30 p.m., one person
arrived at the premises of VRL Logistics in a Swift car, produced the delivery
receipt on his mobile phone and sought delivery of the consignment. Upon
taking possession of the consignment, he was apprehended. During
investigation, he disclosed his name as Avinash Ramkrushna Patil. The
consignment was searched in the presence of panch witnesses and was
found to contain 20 boxes comprising 128 bottles of Raytuss Syrup
containing Codeine Phosphate and Triprolidine Hydrochloride. The said
articles came to be seized under a panchnama. During interrogation,
Avinash Patil disclosed that he and his associates had procured the
consignment in the name of a medical establishment and were illegally
selling and distributing the same through a network of associates and
peddlers for monetary gain. Investigation further revealed the involvement
of several other persons including the present applicants, resulting in filing
of charge-sheet against 47 accused persons.
8. Learned counsel Mr. C.C. Deshpande, holding for learned counsel Mr.
Suyog Rathi for the applicant in Bail Application No.2540 of 2025, submits
that there are 47 accused arraigned in the charge-sheet. Inviting my
attention to the statements of the Godown Manager, the Godown In-charge
of VRL Logistics and other employees recorded during investigation,
appearing at page Nos.335, 338 and 342 of the charge-sheet compilation, he
submits that none of the said witnesses has identified the present applicant
935-BA-2540-25 (+6) check.odt
5
as the person who had received or taken delivery of the seized consignment.
He further submits that the arrest of the applicant is contrary to the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs. State of
Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal No.2195 of 2025). He also places reliance
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Rajinder Rajan Vs.
Union of India [Criminal Appeal No.____ of 2026 arising out of SLP (Crl.)
No.3326 of 2026], particularly paragraphs 8, 21 and 22 thereof, and
submits that the Apex Court has reiterated that where the grounds of arrest
are merely stated to have been orally communicated, it is incumbent upon
the arresting officer to furnish written grounds of arrest to the accused
before production before the Magistrate. According to him, the said
mandate has not been followed in the present case and, therefore, the arrest
itself stands vitiated. He further submits that investigation is complete,
charge-sheet has been filed and there is no material demonstrating the
applicant's involvement in the alleged offence. He therefore prays for grant
of bail.
9. Learned counsel Mr. V.S. Wakale appearing for the applicants in Bail
Application Nos.184 of 2026, 183 of 2026 and 187 of 2026 submits that
there is no Call Detail Record connecting the applicants with the seizure of
the contraband. He further submits that there is no WhatsApp
communication, electronic evidence or scientific material demonstrating
their involvement in the alleged offence. According to him, no recovery has
935-BA-2540-25 (+6) check.odt
6
been effected from the applicants and no material showing conscious
possession of the contraband has been collected during investigation. He
submits that no chemical analysis report was available at the time of
registration of the crime and the applicants have been implicated merely on
the basis of suspicion. He further submits that the investigation is complete,
charge-sheet has been filed and, therefore, continued incarceration of the
applicants is unwarranted. He relies upon order passed by this Court in
BA/425/2026 and order passed by Principal Seat at Bombay in
BA/3846/2024 and order passed by the Patna High Court in Criminal Misc.
Application No.20517/2026, granting bail in similar circumstances.
10. Learned counsel Mr. M.R. Bhosale appearing for applicant No.2 in
Bail Application No.467 of 2026 submits that the applicant is falsely
implicated in the crime. He submits that there is no material demonstrating
his direct participation in the alleged transaction. He submits that nothing
remains to be recovered from the applicant and, therefore, his further
detention is not necessary. He adopts the submissions advanced on behalf of
the other applicants and prays for grant of bail.
11. Per contra, learned APP vehemently opposed the applications. He
submits that the offence is of an extremely serious nature involving
organized trafficking of narcotic substances under the guise of medicinal
products. The investigation has revealed the existence of a well built
syndicate operating across different States for procurement, transportation,
935-BA-2540-25 (+6) check.odt
7
storage and distribution of Codeine-based cough syrup. The present
applicants are not innocent, active participants in the criminal conspiracy.
12. Learned APP further submits that the investigation has revealed
continuous contact amongst the accused persons and their involvement in
the illegal trade through financial transactions and other incriminating
material. According to him, the role of each accused cannot be viewed in
isolation as the offence has been committed in furtherance of a criminal
conspiracy. He submits that the contraband was being supplied to young
boys and girls, including students, and the activities of the accused have
serious repercussions on public health and society at large.
13. Learned APP submits that there is sufficient material collected during
investigation showing the involvement of the applicants in procurement,
transportation and distribution of the contraband. He submits that
considering the gravity of the offence, the organized nature of the crime and
the role attributed to the applicants, Section 37 of the NDPS Act would
apply. He further submits that if released on bail, there is every possibility of
the applicants absconding, influencing witnesses, tampering with
prosecution evidence and indulging in similar activities. He therefore prays
for rejection of the applications.
14. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the
FIR, charge-sheet and the material placed on record.
935-BA-2540-25 (+6) check.odt
8
15. Learned counsel for the applicant in Bail Application No.2540 of
2025 has heavily relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) and Dr. Rajinder Rajan (supra), particularly
paragraphs 8, 21 and 22 thereof, to contend that written grounds of arrest
were not supplied to the applicant and consequently the arrest stands
vitiated.
16. However, a perusal of paragraph 58 of the judgment in Mihir Rajesh
Shah (supra) shows that the Hon'ble Supreme Court itself clarified that the
procedure regarding written communication of grounds of arrest would
govern arrests "henceforth". The relevant observations read thus:-
"58. We are cognizant that there existed no consistent or binding
requirement mandating written communication of the grounds of arrest for
all offences. Holding as above, in our view, would ensure implementation of
the constitutional rights provided to an arrestee as engrafted under Article
22 of the Constitution of India in an effective manner. Such clarity on
obligation would avoid uncertainty in the administration of criminal justice.
The ends of fairness and legal discipline therefore demand that this
procedure as affirmed above shall govern arrests henceforth."
17. In the present case, the arrest of the applicant had already taken
place prior to the pronouncement of the aforesaid judgment. Prima facie,
therefore, the benefit flowing from the said decision would not enure to the
applicant at this stage. Consequently, the contention regarding alleged
illegality of arrest cannot, by itself, constitute a ground for grant of bail in
the facts of the present case.
18. On perusal of the investigation papers, it appears that applicant No.2
- Rupesh Patil in Bail Application No.467 of 2026 had allegedly arranged
935-BA-2540-25 (+6) check.odt
9
procurement of the contraband and had financial transactions with co-
accused connected with the seized consignment. Applicant Sameer Yunus
Shaikh in Bail Application No.2540 of 2025 was found to have reached the
spot for receiving the contraband and had financial dealings with co-accused
Rizwan Khan. Applicant Sohel Salim Hilabi in Bail Application No.183 of
2026 was found to have monetary transactions with co-accused Rizwan
Khan. Applicant Javed Khan Rauf Khan in Bail Application No.187 of 2026
was found to be in regular contact with co-accused Rupesh Patil and Guddu
Khan. Applicant Sayyed Arbaj Sayyed Feroj @ Arbaj Khan in Bail Application
No.184 of 2026 was found connected with several co-accused persons. The
investigation thus discloses a chain of interconnected activities linking the
applicants with the alleged conspiracy.
19. The offence alleged is not an isolated act committed by an
individual. Prima facie, the material collected during investigation reveals
the existence of an organised syndicate engaged in diversion, procurement
and illegal distribution of Codeine-based cough syrup. The role attributed to
the applicants cannot be viewed independently but is required to be
examined in the backdrop of the larger conspiracy unearthed during
investigation. The material on record indicates active coordination amongst
the accused persons in carrying out the illegal trade.
20. The investigation further indicates that the contraband was being
supplied to young boys and girls, including school and college-going
935-BA-2540-25 (+6) check.odt
10
students, for intoxicating purposes. Such activities have serious adverse
consequences on public health and are capable of destroying the future of
the younger generation. Narcotic offences of this nature are offences not
merely against an individual but against society as a whole. The societal
impact of such activities is a relevant consideration while deciding an
application for bail under the NDPS Act.
21. At this stage, there is sufficient material collected during
investigation showing prima facie involvement of the applicants in the
alleged offence. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the accusations,
the role attributed to the applicants, the material indicating conspiracy and
financial transactions amongst the accused, the rigours of Section 37 of the
NDPS Act and the possibility of the applicants influencing witnesses or
indulging in similar activities if released on bail, this Court is not satisfied
that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicants are not
guilty of the offences alleged against them. Consequently, I am not inclined
to exercise the discretion in favour of the applicants.
22. Accordingly, Bail Application No.2540 of 2025, Bail Application
No.184 of 2026, Bail Application No.183 of 2026, Bail Application No.187 of
2026 and Bail Application No.467 of 2026, insofar as applicant No.2 is
concerned, stand rejected.
[ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
JUDGE
S P Rane
Checking your session…