Bombay High Court
ARJUN KAILAS DEVKARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
Bail is granted to the applicant subject to the conditions specified in the order.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with a narcotics case (CR No. 65 of 2024) where the applicant, Arjun Kailas Devkar, was alleged to have been found with 34.05 kg of ganja in a vehicle. The prosecution’s case relied on a spot panchanama that identified the seized material as ganja without separating the flowering parts from stems and leaves, a requirement under Section 42 of the NDPS Act. The court noted that this procedural lapse, coupled with the applicant’s incarceration for more than two and a half years without trial, warranted the grant of bail. It held that the non‑compliance with Section 42 and the prolonged pre‑trial detention were sufficient grounds to release the accused on bail, subject to strict conditions. The order expressly limited its observations to bail and clarified that the trial would proceed on the merits of the evidence.
Issues considered
- What is the impact of the prosecution’s failure to comply with Section 42 of the NDPS Act (weighing of ganja) on the grant of bail?
- Does prolonged pre‑trial detention without trial constitute a ground for bail under Section 483 of the BNSS?
- Can bail be granted in NDPS offences pending trial when procedural deficiencies are evident?
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 20(b), 2(3)(b), 29, 42, 8(c)
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- Section 42
- pre‑trial detention
- Section 483 BNSS
- procedural lapse
- criminal procedure
Judgment
10. BA 3503-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3503 OF 2026
Arjun Kailas Devkar .Applicant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra .Respondent
Mr. Rajendra Bidkar a/w. Mr. Rahul Varde, Advocates, for the Applicant
ANAND Ms. Shilpa G. Talhar, APP, for the Respondent – State
SUDHAKAR
SUDAME Mr. Jitendra Mhare, PSI present
Digitally signed by
ANAND SUDHAKAR
SUDAME CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
Date: 2026.09.22
21:39:48 +0530
DATE : 21.09.2026
P. C.
1. Heard Mr. Bidkar, learned Counsel for the Applicant and Ms.
Talhar, learned APP for the Respondent – State.
2. This Application is filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) in connection with
C.R.No. 65 of 2024 registered with Panvel Taluka Police Station for
offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b) & 29 of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “NDPS”).
3. The Applicant is indicted in an NDPS offence for having been
apprehended along with the alleged contraband namely ‘Ganja’.
According to the prosecution, a total amount of 34.05 Kg Ganja has
been recovered from the car in which the Accused No. 1 and Accused
Anand 1 of 4
10. BA 3503-2026.doc
No. 2 were traveling. Accused No. 2 is before the Court. Accused No.1,
being a driver of the car has been enlarged on bail. The car belongs to
a third person from whom the Accused No. 1 has borrowed it for
driving. Insofar as the case of the prosecution is concerned, it is prima
facie seen that the alleged contraband was recovered from two gunny
bags and when according to the Spot Panchanama, the gunny bags
were opened, the contraband therein was identified as Ganja along
with sticks, stems and leaves together. Insofar as the alleged
contraband is concerned, learned Counsel has argued that according to
the definition of Ganja, under Section 2(3)(b) of the NDPS Act and as
interpreted by this Court in a number Judgments, the prosecution is
required to weigh such contraband by separating its flowering seeds
from its stems and leaves. That not having been done in writ large on
the face of record when the prosecution panchanama appended at page
No.78 is seen. Such non-compliance of the provisions of Section 42 of
the NDPS Act and the fact that the Applicant is incarcerated for the
past more than two years and six months in jail without the trial
having commenced or for that matter it will conclude in the near
future, persuades me to allow the Application for grant of bail. The
Application is allowed.
4. Hence, in view of above prima facie observations and finding,
Bail Application of Applicant is allowed subject to the following terms
Anand 2 of 4
10. BA 3503-2026.doc
and conditions:-
(i) Applicant – Arjun Kailas Devkar is directed to be
immediately released from prison in connection with
CR. No. 65 of 2024;
(ii) Applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing
P.R. Bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) with
one or two sureties of the like amount;
(iii) Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer at
Panvel Taluka Police Station, once every month, on the
first Monday of the month between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00
p.m. until commencement of trial and thereafter shall
attend all dates of hearing before the Trial Court;
(iv) Applicant shall cooperate with the conduct of the trial
and remain present before the Trial Court on all dates,
unless specifically exempted. Applicant shall not seek
unnecessary adjournments. Any such conduct shall
entitle the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail;
(v) Applicant shall not leave the State of Maharashtra
without prior permission of the Trial Court;
(vi) Applicant shall not influence any of the witnesses or
Anand 3 of 4
10. BA 3503-2026.doc
tamper with the evidence in any manner;
(vii) Applicant shall keep the Investigating Officer informed
of his current residential address and mobile telephone
number and shall forthwith inform the Investigating
Officer of any change in his residential address or
mobile telephone number, as and when such change
occurs; and
(viii)Any breach or infraction of any of the aforesaid
conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail granted to
the Applicant.
5. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are limited
for the purpose of granting bail only and I have not made any
observations on merits of the case. The trial shall be adjudicated on
the strength of the evidence led and strictly on its own merits being
uninfluenced with any of the prima facie observations made
hereinabove in this order.
6. Bail Application is allowed and disposed in the above terms.
(MILIND N. JADHAV, J.)
Anand 4 of 4
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.