Bombay High Court
MATEEN BABU SHAIKHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
All four bail applications are allowed and the accused are released on bail.
Summary
The Bombay High Court considered four bail applications filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with a Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) case involving alleged manufacture of ketamine. The prosecution alleged that the accused (Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5) were involved in manufacturing contraband, citing witness statements, money‑transfer records and a seizure from a godown. The Court examined the witness statements and found they primarily described ordinary business transactions of Vighnaharta Logistics and did not establish a direct link to the contraband or a prima facie case against any accused. No forensic analysis of the seized chemicals or a money‑trail indicating drug‑related activity was presented. Consequently, the Court held that the prosecution had not satisfied the threshold for denial of bail and granted bail to all four applicants subject to standard conditions. The order emphasized that the observations were preliminary and would not prejudice the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused under the NDPS Act to deny bail.
- Whether the requirements of Sections 42(1) and 42(2) of the NDPS Act have been complied with in the charge‑sheet.
- Whether bail can be granted under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in NDPS offences where evidence is weak.
- Whether the alleged money transfers and business transactions constitute sufficient evidence of complicity.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 22(c), 23, 29, 42(1), 42(2), 8(c)
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- contraband
- ketamine
- Section 483
- prima facie case
- money transfers
- business relationship
- court conditions
- preliminary evidence
Judgment
40. BA-1621-25 1779-25 2738-26 & 4352-25.odt
Amberkar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1621 OF 2025
Chandra Mani Matamani Tiwari Applicant
.. (Accused No. 5)
Versus
State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
WITH
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1779 OF 2025
Kamal Jayramdas Jeswani Applicant
.. (Accused No. 1)
Versus
State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
WITH
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2738 OF 2026
Mateen Babu Shaikh Applicant
.. (Accused No. 2)
Versus
State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
WITH
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 4352 OF 2025
Devraj Mallikarjun Gadkar Applicant
.. (Accused No. 4)
Versus
State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
....................
Mr. Ashok Mundargi, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Mithilesh Mishra,
Ms. Namasvi Bhanushali, Mr. Hrituraj Singh, Mr. Roshan Balsara
and Dnyaneshwari Hadawale i/by Agastya Desai, Advocates for
Applicant in BA 1621/25
Mr. Anil Lala a/w Mr. Yash Pulekar i/by Mr. Aditya Targe & Ms.
Sneha Sanap, Advocates for Applicant in BA 1779/25
Mr. Kunal Aher a/w Gaurish Satpure, Advocates for Applicant in BA
2738/26
1 of 9
40. BA-1621-25 1779-25 2738-26 & 4352-25.odt
Mr. Taraq Sayed a/w Ms. Ashwini Achari & Anish Pereira,
Advocates for Applicant in BA 4352/25
Ms. Anuja A. Gotad, APP for State
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 7, 2026
P. C.:
1. Heard Mr. Mundargi, learned Senior Advocate for Applicant in
BA 1621/25; Mr. Lala, learned Advocate for Applicant in BA 1779/25;
Mr. Aher, learned Advocate for Applicant in BA 2738/26; Mr. Sayed,
learned Advocate for Applicant in BA 4352/25 & Ms. Gotad, learned
APP for State.
2. This group of four Bail Applications are in respect of accused
Nos. 1, 2, 4 & 5. All these Applications are filed under Section 483 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking Bail in connection
with C.R. No. 364 of 2023 registered with Khopoli Police Station,
Raigad for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 22(c), 23 and
29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for
short ‘NDPS Act’). Due to commonality of facts, they are heard
together.
3. The case of the prosecution stems from the fact that company
called Vighnaharta Logistics belonging to accused No. 1 used to
manufacture contraband products and therefore on receipt of secret
information, they raided the premises and found certain contraband
2 of 9
40. BA-1621-25 1779-25 2738-26 & 4352-25.odt
stored therein. Initially, the said contraband was described as MD;
however, on examination, it turned out to be Ketamine. Both are
contraband substances otherwise according to the prosecution.
4. The case of the prosecution qua accused No. 1 is that he has
been instrumental in manufacturing the contraband substances with
the aid and assistance of the other co-accused persons who have been
arranging the raw material required for manufacture of the alleged
contraband. Accused No. 1's case is, in fact, to the contrary. He would
submit that there is substantial material placed on record in the form
of CDRs where the investigating officers have been in contact with him
and pressurizing him and it is only on the accused No. 1 not
succumbing to pressure, the present case has been foisted under the
NDPS Act. He has argued non-compliance of the provisions of Section
42(1) of the NDPS Act as also 42(2) wherein the name of the accused
No. 1 only appears in the final report prepared under Section 42(2),
whereas it has not been mentioned in any of the information that has
been received by the prosecution otherwise prior thereto. Accused
Number 1 has no antecedents either. He is a business man carrying
out import and export.
5. Learned APP has referred to and relied upon witness statements.
In all, there are four witness statements recorded by prosecution to
indict the accused in the present case. The learned Advocates have
3 of 9
40. BA-1621-25 1779-25 2738-26 & 4352-25.odt
also taken me through the witness statements. In so far as accused No.
1 is concerned, witness statements appended at page 171 and 173 are
heavily relied upon by Ms. Gotad to contend that he had transferred
certain amounts to co-accused persons and those amounts are
reflected in these statements and those amounts pertain to
manufacture of contraband substances, as stated in the witness
statements.
6. I have perused the said witness statements with the able
assistance of Ms. Gotad. Prima facie, I find that the witness statements
refer to and relate to the business relationship between Vighnaharta
Logistics Company which is the firm of accused No. 1 in importing and
exporting chemicals and manufactured chemicals. In the process of
manufacturing chemicals, the said witness statements record the
factory setup of accused No. 1 which is prima facie seen to be an
expensive factory setup for the purpose of manufacturing chemicals
and final products for the purpose of import and export as also the
orders placed and received on the basis of invoices.
7. The material in the form of witness statements prima facie does
not make me prima facie believe that the prosecution has come out
with a watertight case to indict accused No. 1 at this stage at the
threshold. Needless to state that complicity of accused No. 1 shall be
4 of 9
40. BA-1621-25 1779-25 2738-26 & 4352-25.odt
otherwise proved at trial by the prosecution, and all their contentions
are kept open.
8. Qua the other accused, in so far as accused No. 2 is concerned,
the learned Advocate appearing for him would submit that he is the
manager of the firm of accused No. 1 which was also functioning in
the name of Aanchal Chemicals and he had been working merely as a
manager and therefore, he had no direct role or nexus to play
whatsoever in the trading neither it is shown or evident prima facie.
What is true for the goose is true for the gander, and therefore, in so
far as indictment of accused No. 2 is concerned, he would also have to
be given the benefit of doubt at the preliminary stage for grant of bail,
since he was working as a manager in the firm of the accused No. 1
overlooking the operations and there is nothing incriminating placed
on record to indict him by the prosecution.
9. In so far as accused No. 4 is concerned, the learned Advocate
has argued that he has been indicted on the basis of a witness
statement to be an intermediary, and in the past having negotiated
export consignments between the Custom House Clearing Agent
(CHA) and accused No. 3. That apart, it is argued and contended that
there is nothing placed on record which shows incriminating role of
the accused No. 4 qua the present alleged crime in question.
5 of 9
40. BA-1621-25 1779-25 2738-26 & 4352-25.odt
10. In so far as accused No. 5 is concerned, learned Senior Advocate
has persuaded me to consider that save and except the witness
statement appended at page 172, there is nothing incriminating shown
in so far as the role of accused No. 5 is concerned. He would submit
that accused No. 5, otherwise speaking, happens to be a commission
agent and has dabbled in various commission-oriented businesses at
times.
11. What is intriguing is the fact that what is recovered from the
godown of one of the witness Mr. Thorat where accused No. 5 used to
store his goods was due to be delivered to accused No. 1 on the basis
of various orders and transactions which are emanating from the
witness statements at page 172 and 173. It is seen that these goods
are not contraband even according to prosecution. It is alleged that
they would have been used for preparing contraband substances as
raw material. However these goods and chemicals have not been
forensically examined, and no CA report has been made available to
show that the chemicals were ultimately used in manufacture of any
final contraband substance whatsoever. That not having been done,
merely on the basis of the chemicals having recovered to be used as
raw material from the said godown cannot be made applicable to
indict accused No. 5 in manufacturing or storing contraband
substances. There is no money trail either that is established.
6 of 9
40. BA-1621-25 1779-25 2738-26 & 4352-25.odt
12. The prosecution has also referred to and relied upon the money
transfers between the aforesaid accused persons. Details of those
money transfers are appearing in the witness statement at page 173. I
have perused the same. Prima facie, those money transfers are not
mere money transfers, but are backed by appropriate invoices and
work orders and orders, details of which are also given therein. They
are all bank transfers, and not in high denomination either. Therefore,
prima facie, there is no reason to believe that such money transfers
could be treated as humongous money transfers and would otherwise
amount to any drug-related issue. Needless to state that complicity of
all the accused persons can be proved by the prosecution at trial.
13. Having regard to the fact that no recovery has been done and
there is no specific, direct involvement of any of the accused qua the
specific contraband that has been recovered, I am inclined to consider
the aforesaid Applications for grant of bail. In view thereof, all four
Applicants are granted bail on following conditions:-
(i) All four Applicants are directed to be immediately
released from prison in connection with C.R. No.
364/2023;
(ii) All four Applicants are directed to be released on bail
on furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs. 50,000/- each (Rs. Fifty
Thousand each) with one or two sureties in the like
7 of 9
40. BA-1621-25 1779-25 2738-26 & 4352-25.odt
amount;
(iii) All four Applicants shall report to the concerned
Investigating officer, once every month on the first
Monday of the month between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00
p.m.;
(iv) All four Applicants shall co-operate with the conduct of
trial and attend the Trial Court on all dates, unless
specifically exempted and will not take any unnecessary
adjournments, if they do so it will entitle the
prosecution to apply for revocation of this order;
(v) All four Applicants shall not leave the country without
prior permission of the Trial Court and shall deposit
their passports with the Trial Court within one week
from the date of their respective release;
(vi) Applicants shall not influence any of the witnesses or
tamper with the evidence in any manner;
(vii) Applicants shall keep the Investigating Officer informed
of their current addresses and mobile contact numbers
and / or change of residence or mobile details, if any,
from time to time, as applicable; and
(viii)Any infraction of the conditions shall entail cancellation
of bail granted to the Applicants.
8 of 9
40. BA-1621-25 1779-25 2738-26 & 4352-25.odt
14. Needless to state that the above observations will not come in
the way of trial as they are prima facie in nature based on the
submissions made and the material placed before this Court.
15. All four Bail Applications are allowed and disposed of in the
above terms.
Amberkar [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally signed
by RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA MOHAN
AMBERKAR
MOHAN Date:
AMBERKAR 2026.09.07
19:49:28
+0530
9 of 9
Checking your session…