Bombay High Court
ANAND BHAGWAN BHISE AND ANRversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
In the absence of direct substantive evidence and to avoid unjust pre‑trial detention, the Court held that bail should be granted.
Summary
The applicants, Anand Bhagwan Bhise and Aftab Rajjak Sayyed, were arrested under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 for alleged possession of a commercial quantity of narcotics, based primarily on confessional statements of co‑accused and CDR records. They contended that they were falsely implicated and that there was no direct substantive evidence against them. The State argued that the recovery was linked to the applicants and that the seriousness of the offence warranted denial of bail. The Court observed that the charge‑sheet showed no direct evidence, the confessional statements and CDR records could be examined at trial, and the applicants had no prior criminal antecedents. Considering the completed investigation, the likely protracted trial, and the risk of unjust pre‑trial detention, the Court exercised its discretion to grant regular bail with conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted when the prosecution's case rests mainly on confessional statements of co‑accused and CDR records without direct substantive evidence.
- Whether continued pre‑trial detention is justified given the anticipated length of the trial in a serious NDPS offence.
- Whether the seriousness of offences under Sections 8(c), 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act precludes the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 22(c), 29, 8(c)
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- confessional statements
- pre‑trial detention
- commercial quantity
- criminal procedure
Judgment
1-BA-259-2026 (CR).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 259 OF 2026
1. Anand Bhagwan Bhise
2. Aftab Rajjak Sayyed
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra And Anr.
...
Mr. Nadeem Khan a/w Ms. Sadiya Khan, Advocate for Applicants.
Dr. A.A. Takalkar, APP for the Respondents – State.
...
CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 8th APRIL, 2026
P. C. :
1. The applicants seek regular bail in connection with FIR dated
11.06.2025 bearing Crime No. 428 of 2025 registered with Akluj
Police Station, Dist. Solapur for the offences punishable under
Sections 8(c), 22(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985.
2. The learned counsel for the Applicants submits that the
applicants are falsely implicated in the case. The applicants are
arraigned as accused merely on the basis of the confessional
Digitally
statements. The applicants are in custody for more than nine
signed by
SAJAKALI
SAJAKALI LIYAKAT
LIYAKAT JAMADAR
JAMADAR Date:
2026.04.08
20:23:09
+0530
Sajakali Jamadar 1 of 4
1-BA-259-2026 (CR).doc
months since their arrest. The trial is likely to take a considerable
period for its conclusion. As such the counsel has prayed that the
application be allowed.
3. The learned APP opposed the application, submitting that the
recovery is carried out at the instance of the statements given by the
applicants. The C.D.R. substantiates the link of the applicants with
the other co-accused. The offences involves commercial quantity of
the contraband. Given the seriousness of the offence, prayed for
rejection of the application.
4. Upon considering the submissions of both the sides and
perusing the material on record, including the charge-sheet prima
facie indicate that the recovery of the alleged contraband is not
effected at the instance of the present applicants. The applicants
are primarily arraigned as accused on the basis of the CDR record as
well as the purported confessional statements given by the co-
accused.
5. Further perusal of the record indicates that apart from the
aforesaid aspects, prima facie there is absence of direct substantive
evidence against the applicants. The veracity and the reliability of
the confessional statements as well as the C.D.R. record can be
Sajakali Jamadar 2 of 4
1-BA-259-2026 (CR).doc
adequately dealt with during the trial. Apart from above aspects, in
absence of antecedents to the discredit of the applicants, I am
inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the applicants.
6. Nevertheless, the investigation is completed for all intents and
purposes. Having regard to the number of witnesses, which the
prosecution seeks to examine, the trial is unlikely to conclude within
a reasonable period. Thus, further detention of the applicants may
amount to pre-trial detention which is neither warranted nor
justified.
7. Hence, the following order :-
ORDER
(I) Application is allowed.
(II) Applicants – Anand Bhagwan Bhise and Aftab
Rajjak Sayyed be released on regular bail on
furnishing P.R. bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty
Thousand Only) each with one or two local
solvent sureties in the like amount, in
connection with Crime No. 428 of 2025
registered with Akluj Police Station, Dist.
Solapur for the offences punishable under
Sections 8(c), 22(c) and 29 of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985,
on the following conditions :-
Sajakali Jamadar 3 of 4
1-BA-259-2026 (CR).doc
(a) The Applicants 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 Applicants 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 Applicants shall not indulge in similar type
of offences in future.
(d) In case of breach of any of the conditions by
the Applicants, 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.)
Sajakali Jamadar 4 of 4
Checking your session…