Bombay High Court
NAHENDRA MAHENDRA MAKHWANAversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court held that bail may be granted as no direct recovery of contraband from the applicants was established and the prima facie case was insufficient, subject to stringent conditions.
Summary
The High Court considered six bail applications filed by accused persons charged under Sections 8(c), 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act for alleged involvement in a Mephedrone trafficking network. The prosecution’s case relied mainly on statements of co‑accused and alleged phone contacts, with no contraband recovered from the applicants themselves. The defence argued that such evidence was not admissible and that no prima facie case existed. The court observed that the statements were made before police and lacked corroboration, and that Section 37 of the NDPS Act could not be invoked without direct recovery from the accused. Consequently, the court held that bail could be granted, subject to stringent conditions to ensure the applicants’ attendance, non‑interference with evidence, and restriction from the jurisdiction. The applications were disposed of by ordering bail on a personal bond with sureties and detailed compliance conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the applicants under the NDPS Act.
- Whether Section 37 of the NDPS Act is applicable in the absence of direct recovery of contraband from the accused.
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused despite the alleged drug trafficking allegations.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 22(c), 29, 37, 8(c)
Subjects
- NDPS Act
- bail
- drug trafficking
- prima facie case
- Section 37
- evidentiary standards
- bail conditions
- criminal procedure
Judgment
WAKLE
MANOJ MANOJ 902-BA-1037-2026 & GROUP.DOC
JANARDHAN
Digitally signed by
WAKLE MANOJ
JANARDHAN
Date: 2026.09.18 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
13:09:16 +0530
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.227 OF 2026
Shiva Hiralal Gupta …Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra …Respondent
WITH
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.802 OF 2026
Shahnawaz Abid Chinoy …Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra …Respondent
WITH
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.862 OF 2026
Mohammad Akram Surti …Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra …Respondent
WITH
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1037 OF 2026
Mohammad Hanif Mohammad Yaseen Shaikh …Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra …Respondent
WITH
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.373 OF 2026
Nahendra Mahendra Makhwana …Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra …Respondent
Mr. Sherali S. Khan, a/w Adv. Veeraj Naik, Adv. Tabish Shaikh &
Adv. Yukta Chavan, for the Applicant in BA/227/2026.
Mr. Anil G. Lalla a/w Mr. Yash S. Pulekar, for the Applicant in
BA/802/2026.
Page 1 of 8
MANOJ 902-BA-1037-2026 & GROUP.DOC
Mr. Taraq Sayed a/w Ms. Ashwini Achari, Adv. Anish Pereira,
Mr.Aryan Kotwal, for the Applicant in BA/862/2026.
Mr. Kamlesh M. Satre a/w Adv.Prachi Doiphode & Adv. Praful
Gadekar, for the Applicant in BA/1037/2026.
Ms. Munira Palanpurwala a/w Ms. Sumaiya Khan & Ms. Deepa
Amati, for the Applicant in BA/373/2026.
Ms. A. A. Deshmukh, APP for the Respondent-State.
Mr. Ganesh Dada Karche, PSI, IO, Mr. M. Khandare, API, D.C.B.,
CID., Ms. Dipali Pawse, PSI and Mr. Pradip Dupate, PI, R.C.F.
Police Station, present.
CORAM: SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
DATED : 10th SEPTEMBER, 2026
P.C. :-
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record.
2. Applicants, the Original Accused Nos.2, 4, 8, 9 and 10 are
seeking their release on bail in connection with Cr.No.159 of 2025
registered with R.C.F. Police Station, Mumbai for the offence
punishable under Sections 8(c), 22(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs
And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”), on the report
dated 19th March, 2025, filed by Mr. Vijay Sheshrao Wani, ASI.
3. All the applications are arising out of similar crime, therefore,
heard together and are being disposed of by this Order.
4. The prosecution case is that on 18 th March 2025, at about
22.00 hours, police team of RCF Police Station, headed by PSI -
Khandare including first informant – Vijay Wani, were patrolling in
Chembur area. When, they arrived near J.K. Company, Patel Nagar,
Mahul, Chembur, Mumbai, A1 was present there and his conduct
was suspicious. The said police accosted A1. On inquiry, A1 gave
evasive replies. In the personal search of A1 in the presence of the
panchas, 45 grams of Mephedrone was found in his possession.
Therefore, the aforesaid crime came to be registered. On the basis of
Page 2 of 8
MANOJ 902-BA-1037-2026 & GROUP.DOC
statement of A1 and secret information, A2-Shiva Gupta @ Shiva
Chembur was traced and arrested. On inquiry, A2 revealed that he
had procured that contraband from A3. This led to arrest of A3.
Pursuant to A3’s voluntary disclosure, 144 grams of Mephedrone
was recovered from him by the police. Additionally, A3 disclosed
that he used to procure the contraband from A4, Shahanawaz
Chinoy. Therefore, A4 was arrested on 03/05/2025. A3 disclosed
that he used to purchase the contraband from A4 and has been
selling MD for one year, which was corroborated by chats between
A3 and A4. A4 disclosed that he used to procure the contraband
from A5. On basis of statement of A4, A5 was arrested on
15/05/2025. Pursuant to A5’s voluntary disclosure, 6.5 Kg. Of
Mephedrone was recovered from him. A5 disclosed that he used to
procure the contraband from A6. Pursuant to A6’s voluntary
disclosure, 5.525 Kg. of Mephedrone was recovered from him,
which he had procured from A7. Consequently, A7 was arrested on
10/06/ 2025 and, on A7’s disclosure, 96 grams of Mephedrone was
recovered. A7 disclosed that he used to manufacture the
Mephedrone at the instance of absconding accused Salim Dola and,
supply that contraband to A8-Mohammed Akram Surti, A9-
Mohammed Hanif Shaikh and A10- Narendra Makhwana and A11
to sell the same. Therefore, the A8 to A11 came to be arrested. It is
alleged that all the accused persons were working for A12 Salim
Dola. On completion of investigation, police submitted the charge-
sheet. The trial Court refused to release the applicants on bail.
Therefore, they have approached this Court.
5. The learned Advocate for the respective applicants submitted
that there is no sufficient and legal evidence making out a prima
facie case of the alleged offence against the applicants. There is no
Page 3 of 8
MANOJ 902-BA-1037-2026 & GROUP.DOC
recovery of the contraband from the possession of the applicants.
Therefore, the applicants are entitled for bail on conditions that
may be imposed by this Court.
6. Ms.Deshmukh, the learned APP, on the other hand submitted
that, A1 has clearly stated that the applicants used to supply the
contraband to him. There is huge recovery of the contraband from
A5 and A7. There were telephonic and whatsApp contacts amongst
the accused persons. As such there is a prima facie case against the
applicants. Therefore and, looking at the commercial quantity of the
contraband substance recovered in the case; the magnitude of the
crime as well as the criminal antecedents of the applicants, none of
the applicant is entitled for bail.
7. The involvement of the applicants in this crime is mainly
based on their own statements and the statements of the co-accused
persons against each-other. However, all the said statements
without recovery of the contraband substance were made before the
police. Therefore, the same is not an admissible evidence.
8. As submitted by the the learned APP, mobile phone number
of A12–Salim Dola was found in the mobile phone of A2. However,
no material is pointed out to prima facie hold that the said mobile
phone number is indeed belonging to A12. The learned APP has
pointed that A2 has 16 criminal antecedents of bodily offences. But,
therein A2 is on bail. Present case is the only case against A2 under
the NDPS Act. As alleged, there were telephonic calls between A3
and A2. However, no CDR report is produced to substantiate the
said fact.
9. The learned APP has submitted that A3 had named the A4 as
supplier of the drugs to him. However, Mr. Lalla, the learned
Page 4 of 8
MANOJ 902-BA-1037-2026 & GROUP.DOC
counsel for A4 has submitted there were only four Whatsapp calls
between A3 and A4. There is no proximity between the alleged
phone calls and the seizure of the contraband from A1. Therefore,
how mere exchange of the said phone calls would serve as an
incriminating fact, is a question of trial. There is one criminal
antecedent against A4 of possessing 34 grams of Mephedrone.
Therein he is on bail.
10. Mr. Sayed, the learned Advocate for A8 submitted that, as
alleged, photographs of the factory of A6, where he used to
manufacture the contraband were found in the mobile phone seized
from the possession of A8 as per the mobile extraction report dated
16th June 2025. However, it is a matter of record that said mobile
phone of A8 was allegedly seized from his possession at the time of
his arrest on 11th June 2025 and, it is not explained to where that
mobile phone was kept after its seizure until it was examined for the
purpose of extracting its contents on 16 th June, 2025. Therefore,
whether the said photos were taken by A8 before his arrest or not
and whether said photos were of the factory in question or not, are
the questions which are required to be examined on the basis of
merits of the case. Except this, there is no other evidence against A8
indicating his complicity in this crime. The applicant has no
antecedents.
11. Mr. Satre, the learned Advocate for A9 submitted that, as
alleged, A7 named A9 as the person, who was dealing with him for
the sale and purchase of the drugs. However, there is no recovery of
any contraband from A9. Although, a mobile phone is seized from
the possession of A9, no CDR is produced on record to indicate that
there were telephonic contacts between A9 and A7. The case against
A9 is identical to the case against A11, who is granted bail. There is
Page 5 of 8
MANOJ 902-BA-1037-2026 & GROUP.DOC
one criminal antecedent against A9 for the possession of 22 grams
Mephedrone. Therein, he is on bail.
12. Ms.Palanpurwala, the learned Advocate for A10 submitted
that, as alleged, A7 has named the A10 referring him as Nanu.
However, there is no evidence that A10 is known as Nanu amongst
the accused persons. No mobile phone is recovered from A10. There
is no evidence showing that the mobile number which A10 used to
operate, had contact with A5. As alleged, 112 phone calls were
exchanged between A5 and A7, but, it is not countenanced by
producing relevant CDR. Consequently, the recovery of 6.5 Kg. Of
the contraband from A5 may not be an incriminating circumstance
against A10. Therefore, the complicity of A10 in this crime is the
subject matter of the trial.
13. In view thereof and, since there is no recovery of the
contraband from the possession of the applicants, the rigours of
Section 37 NDPS Act will not be applicable against them only on the
strength of the recovery of the contraband from the other accused
persons.
14. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the
case thus, in my view, the applicants may be released on bail, but on
stringent conditions.
15. Hence, following Order:-
(i) Applicants – Shiva Hiralal Gupta, Shahnawaz Abid
Chinoy, Mohammad Akram Surti, Mohammad Hanif
Mohammad Yaseen Shaikh & Nahendra Mahendra
Makhwana shall be released on bail in connection with
Cr.No.159 of 2025 registered with R.C.F. Police Station,
Mumbai, on their furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of
Page 6 of 8
MANOJ 902-BA-1037-2026 & GROUP.DOC
Rs.1,00,000/- each with one or two sureties in the like
amount.
(ii) The applicants shall regularly attend the proceedings
before the jurisdictional Court unless exempted by the said
Court, for the reasons to be recorded in writing.
(iii) The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence and shall not directly or indirectly influence upon
the prosecution witness to prevent them from deposing
against them.
(iv) The applicants shall not indulge in identical activities
for which they have been arraigned in this case.
(v) The applicants shall not reside and enter in jurisdiction
of Mumbai and Thane districts, till conclusion of the trial,
except for attending in the cases pending against them before
the trial Court including the present case.
As a compliance of this condition, the applicants shall
inform the Investigating Officer the place outside jurisdiction
of Mumbai and Thane districts where they would reside till
the conclusion of the trial.
The Investigating Officer shall ascertain that said places
are situated outside the jurisdiction of Mumbai and Thane
districts. Accordingly, the Investigating Officer shall submit
his report before the trial Court.
The applicants shall mark their attendance at the local
police station on 1st day of month in every two months,
between 11.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.
Page 7 of 8
MANOJ 902-BA-1037-2026 & GROUP.DOC
(vi) On being released from jail, the applicants shall furnish
their contact numbers and residential address to the
Investigation Officer and shall keep him updated, in case
there is any change.
(vii) In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the
Respondent-RCF Police Station shall be at liberty to apply for
cancellation of bail before the trial Court.
(viii) It is clarified that any observation made in the present
Order are for the purpose of deciding the present Bail
applications and should not influence the outcome of the trial
and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on the
merits of the case.
16. Applications stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
(SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)
Page 8 of 8
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.