Bombay High Court

RAMESHWARLAL MOTIJI AHIRversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided: 22 September 2026
Disposal: Allowed

Holding

The bail application is allowed, subject to specified conditions.

Summary

The High Court considered an application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed by Rameshwarlal Motiji Ahir, who has been in custody for over a year for alleged violations of Sections 8(c), 21(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act. The applicant highlighted several procedural discrepancies, including mismatches between the seizure panchanama and the inventory regarding the description, weight and packaging of the contraband, and alleged non‑compliance with Sections 42 and 52 of the NDPS Act. The State argued that these were mere irregularities and that the prosecution intended to examine about 25 witnesses. The Court, after noting the prima facie irregularities, the lack of a trial, and the applicant’s claim of no prior criminal record, decided that the case warranted bail. Bail was granted subject to a personal bond of Rs.50,000, sureties, reporting requirements, residence restrictions, and non‑interference with witnesses. The order expressly limited its observations to bail considerations and did not address the merits of the underlying criminal case.

Issues considered

Whether the procedural irregularities alleged under Sections 42 and 52 of the NDPS Act justify the grant of bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023.
Whether the applicant’s continued detention is warranted in view of the pending trial and the prosecution’s intention to examine numerous witnesses.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 21(c), 29, 42, 52, 8(c)

Subjects

bail
NDPS Act
procedural irregularities
seizure panchanama
BNSS
criminal procedure
pre‑trial detention

Judgment

9.BA.3534.2026.doc

Ajay

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3534 OF 2026

Rameshwarlal Motiji Ahir .. Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
....................
 Mr. Ali Kaashif Khan Deshmukh a/w. Ms. Snigdha Khandelwal and
Mr. Mohammed Farid, Advocates for Applicant.
 Mr. Amit A. Palkar, APP for Respondent – State.
......…...........

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 22, 2026.

P.C.:

1. Heard Mr. Khan - Deshmukh, learned Advocate for Applicant

and Mr. Palkar, learned APP for Respondent – State.

2. This is an Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) seeking bail in

connection with C.R.No.197 of 2026 registered with Wagholi Police

Station, District Pune for offences punishable under Sections 8(c),

21(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,

1985 (for short “NDPS Act”).

3. Applicant is incarcerated in an NDPS offence for the past

more than one year. There are primarily seven discrepancies with

regard to non-compliance of procedure under Sections 42 and 52 of

NDPS Act brought to notice of the Court. According to Applicant, the

1 of 4
9.BA.3534.2026.doc

crime register number is already mentioned on the seal at the time of

seizure panchanama itself and that itself has to be a ground for

consideration.

4. Needless to state that the issue between irregularity and

illegality of the actions taken on the part of the prosecution officers

shall be considered at the time of trial because Mr. Palkar persuades

the Court to consider the aberrations as mere irregularities. The

physical description of the contraband which is otherwise available and

visible to the naked eye is required to be described as it is. However,

there is vast discrepancy with regard to its description as well when it

is reflected as white powder in the seizure panchanama and brown

colored liquid and paste with lumps in the inventory panchanama.

5. The weight of the contraband also differs in both the

panchanamas by 4 grams and also the packaging description. Total

weight of the sample is not recorded in the seizure panchanama

whereas it is so recorded while doing the inventory. The inventory has

not been prepared as per the prescribed format. In view of these

discrepancies and the fact that the trial has not commenced and the

prosecution desires to examine approximately 25 witnesses and

Applicant claims that he has no criminal antecedents, which is refuted

by Mr. Palkar. I am inclined to consider the Applicant’s case. In view of

the above, Applicant has made out a case for grant of bail.

2 of 4
9.BA.3534.2026.doc

6. Hence, in view of above prima facie observations and

findings, Bail Application of Applicant is allowed subject to the

following terms and conditions:-

(i) Applicant – Rameshwarlal Motiji Ahir is directed to be

immediately released from prison in connection with

CR. No.197 of 2026;

(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 in the like amount;

(iii) Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer at

Wagholi Police Station, once every month, on the first

Sunday 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

3 of 4
9.BA.3534.2026.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.

7. 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.

8. Bail Application is allowed and disposed in the above terms.

[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

Ajay
Digitally signed
by AJAY
AJAY TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.09.22
20:25:15 +0530

4 of 4

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.