Bombay High Court
PRASHANT KUMAR NAYAKversusTHE UNION OF INDIA
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- NEELA KEDAR GOKHALE
Holding
The court held that, prima facie, there is no reason to believe the applicant committed the alleged offence and therefore enlarged bail.
Summary
The applicant, accused No.3 in a narcotics case, was arrested after co-accused statements linked him to a shipment of 48 kg of ganja intercepted from a bus traveling from Odisha to Mumbai. No contraband was recovered from the applicant and the Special Judge had denied bail. The applicant argued lack of material evidence and absence of any conspiracy under Section 29 of the NDPS Act. The prosecution relied on the co-accused's statements to allege the applicant's role as a distributor. The High Court found that, prima facie, there was no evidence to justify continued detention and therefore granted bail with standard conditions. The order emphasized that the observations were limited to the bail application and the trial court would decide the merits of the case.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused under the NDPS Act when no contraband is recovered from him and the only evidence is a co-accused's statement.
- Whether the applicant's alleged participation falls within the ambit of Section 29 (conspiracy) of the NDPS Act.
- Whether the applicant's arrest was justified in the absence of direct incriminating material.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 20(b)(ii)(C), 27(a), 28, 29, 8(c)
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- drug trafficking
- conspiracy
- evidentiary standards
- bail conditions
- criminal procedure
Judgment
Prasad Rajput
(P.A.) 15_BA_2824_2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO.2824 OF 2025
Prashant Kumar Nayak …Applicant
Versus
The Union of India …Respondent
Mr. Amol M. Thombre, for the Applicant.
Ms. Manisha S. Jagtap, Spl. PP for the Respondent – Union of
India.
Ms. Poonam P. Bhosale, APP for the Respondent No.2 – State.
CORAM DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.
DATED: 17TH FEBRUARY 2026
PC:-
1. By this Application, the Applicant seeks his
enlargement on bail in connection with C.R. No.23 of 2024
dated 23rd October, 2024 registered with the Narcotics
Control Bureau (NCB), Mumbai Zonal Unit, Mumbai, for the
offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with Section
20(b)(ii)(C), 27(a), 28 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS’). In all
there are five accused persons involved in the present offence.
Page 1 of 7
th
17 February 2026
Prasad Rajput
(P.A.) 15_BA_2824_2025.doc
Accused No.4 has been granted bail this Court today by a
separate order. The applicant is Accused No.3.
2. The brief facts of prosecution the case are that the
officials of NCB Zonal Unit, Mumbai received intelligence that
two persons namely Deepak Biswal and Samir Kanhar were
traveling in a bus, coming from Odisha heading to Mumbai,
carrying substantial quantity of ganja. Acting on the said
information, the NCB officials intercepted the bus. After
complying with the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act,
they searched the bus and the accused and recovered 48 Kgs
of ganja. Both the Accused Nos.1 and 2 were arrested. Upon
further investigation of these two accused, Deepak Biswal
revealed the name of Accused No.3 namely, Prashant Nayak
i.e. the present Applicant as the person who was to receive the
said contraband. Pursuant to registration of the FIR, the
Applicant came to be arrested.
3. The Applicant made an application seeking bail
before the Special Judge, NDPS, Brihanmumbai City. However,
Page 2 of 7
th
17 February 2026
Prasad Rajput
(P.A.) 15_BA_2824_2025.doc
by order dated 26th June, 2025, the said application was
rejected. Hence, the Applicant has filed the present Bail
Application for the relief as prayed.
4. Mr. Thombre, learned counsel for the Applicant,
submits that there is no recovery of any contraband from the
possession of the present Applicant. There is no evidence on
record to indicate the complicity of the Applicant in the
alleged offence. He submits that there is no conspiracy within
the meaning of Section 29 of the NDPS Act. He submits that
only on the statement of the Accused No.2, Samir Kanhar, the
Applicant has been arrested. He further submits that there is
no incriminating material available on record against the
Applicant to justify his arrest. He, therefore, prays that the
Applicant be enlarged on bail.
5. Ms. Jagtap, learned Spl. PP, brought to my
attention the averments made by the Sub-inspector, NCB, in
his affidavit dated 4th December, 2025 affirmed before the
Notary Public. She submits that the present Applicant is an
Page 3 of 7
th
17 February 2026
Prasad Rajput
(P.A.) 15_BA_2824_2025.doc
active participant in the organized trafficking and distribution
of ganja in the Mumbai. The role of the present Applicant is
disclosed when Deepak Biswal and Samir Kanhar gave their
voluntary statement specifically disclosing the role of the
present Applicant as being the distributor of the ganja.
According to her, the ganja recovered from their possession
weighing 48 Kgs was for the purpose of giving it to the
present Applicant for further distribution. She, therefore,
submits that the Applicant is involved in drug trafficking and
prays that the application be rejected.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the respective
parties and perused the record of the case with their
assistance.
7. Admittedly, no contraband was recovered from the
present Applicant. The Applicant was arrested on 23 rd October,
2024 and has suffered incarceration for almost one and half
years. Only on the statement of the co-accused the Applicant
has been arrested. In these circumstances and in the facts of
Page 4 of 7
th
17 February 2026
Prasad Rajput
(P.A.) 15_BA_2824_2025.doc
the present case, prima facie there is a reason to believe that
the Applicant has not committed the alleged offence.
8. In these circumstances, I am inclined to enlarge
the Applicant on bail. It is accordingly ordered as under:-
ORDER
i) The Applicant be enlarged on bail, on
executing PR Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/ with
one or two local sureties in the like amount;
ii) The Applicant shall attend the Trial Court
concerned on each and every date unless exempted
by the orders of the Trial Court concerned;
iii) The Applicant shall also attend the Police
Station concerned once in a month between 11:00
a.m. to 02:00 p.m.;
Page 5 of 7
th
17 February 2026
Prasad Rajput
(P.A.) 15_BA_2824_2025.doc
iv) If the Applicant is a holder of passport, he
shall deposit the same, if not already deposited, with
the Police Station concerned;
v) The Applicant shall not leave India, without
the permission of the Trial Court;
vi) The Applicant shall not tamper or attempt to
influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or
any person concerned with the case;
vii) The Applicant shall inform his latest place of
residence and contact number immediately after
being released and / or change of residence or
mobile details, if any, from time to time to the Court
seized of the matter and to the Investigating Officer
of the Police Station concerned;
viii) The Applicant to co-operate with the conduct
of the trial;
Page 6 of 7
th
17 February 2026
Prasad Rajput
(P.A.) 15_BA_2824_2025.doc
ix) Any infraction of the aforesaid conditions
shall entail cancellation of bail.
9. Application is allowed in the above terms and is
accordingly disposed of.
10. It is made clear that the observations made herein
are prima facie and are confined to this Application and the
learned Trial Judge to decide the case on its own merits,
uninfluenced by the observations made herein.
(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J)
Page 7 of 7
th
17 February 2026
Checking your session…