Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

KANAIYYALALA ALIAS KANHA JAGDISHCHANDRA JAT (CHOUDHARI)versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposal
DISMISSED

Holding

The bail application was dismissed as the applicant failed to make out a case for bail under the NDPS Act.

Summary

The applicant, Kanaiyyalala alias Kanha Jagdishchandra Jat, was arrested for offences under Sections 20 and 20(b) of the NDPS Act after Ganja was discovered in his vehicle and he fled the scene of an accident. He filed a bail application, arguing that the charge‑sheet had been filed, the investigation was complete, and that the prosecution had not complied with Sections 42, 50, 52A and 57 of the NDPS Act. The State opposed, contending that the applicant is a habitual offender, the quantity seized exceeds the commercial threshold, and that all mandatory procedural requirements, including Sections 52A and 57, had been satisfied. The Court examined the record, noted that the inventory was prepared and certified, and found that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act were complied with. Considering the seriousness of the offence, the commercial quantity involved, and the applicant’s conduct, the Court held that the applicant failed to establish a case for bail and dismissed the application.

Issues considered

  • The applicability of bail provisions under the NDPS Act for offences under Sections 20 and 20(b) when the seized quantity exceeds commercial quantity.
  • Whether the mandatory procedural requirements of Sections 42, 50, 52A and 57 of the NDPS Act have been complied with.
  • Whether the applicant’s status as a habitual offender and his act of fleeing the accident preclude the grant of bail.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • NDPS Act
  • narcotic drugs
  • commercial quantity
  • habitual offender
  • Section 37
  • mandatory procedures
  • bail denial

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:24545
                                               1 of 3                     31-BA.586.2026



                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                              31 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 586 OF 2026

                       KANAIYYALALA ALIAS KANHA JAGDISHCHANDRA JAT
                                           (CHOUDHARI)
                                               VERSUS
                                   THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                                                  ...
               Mr. Abhijit S. More, Advocate for Applicant.
               Mr. S. D. Ghayal, APP for Respondent-State.
                                                  ...

                                       CORAM :          SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                       DATE     :       22nd JUNE, 2026

               P.C.:-

               1.       Heard learned Advocate Mr. Abhijit S. More for the Applicant

               and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. S. D. Ghayal for the

               Respondent–State.


               2.       By the present application, the Applicant seeks his release on

               bail in connection with Crime No.344 of 2022 registered with

               Anandnagar Police Station, Dharashiv, for the offences punishable

               under Sections 20 and 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

               Substances Act, 1985 (for short, “the NDPS Act”).


               3.       As per the prosecution case, Ganja was found in a vehicle

               belonging to the present Applicant. It is alleged that when the said

               vehicle met with an accident, the Applicant fled from the spot.

               Consequently, the aforesaid crime came to be registered against him.
                                 2 of 3                31-BA.586.2026



4.        Mr. More, learned Advocate for the Applicant submits that

the charge-sheet has now been filed. He further contends that there is

non-compliance with the provisions of Sections 42, 50, 52A and 57 of

the NDPS Act.


5.        He further submits that the investigation is complete and the

charge-sheet has been filed. The Applicant has been behind bars since

09.07.2025 and, therefore, his further detention is not warranted.


6.        Per contra, Mr. S. D. Ghayal, learned APP strongly opposes

the application. He submits that the Applicant is a habitual offender

and that a similar offence had earlier been registered against him. He

further submits that the quantity of Ganja recovered from the vehicle

was above the commercial quantity and, therefore, the rigours of

Section 37 of the NDPS Act would apply. He contends that all

mandatory procedures prescribed under the NDPS Act have been duly

complied with, including the requirements under Sections 52A and 57.

He further points out that the charge-sheet has already been filed.


7.        I have heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties

and perused the record, including the charge-sheet. The material on

record indicates that the vehicle belonging to the Applicant was found

carrying Ganja and that the Applicant fled from the spot after the

vehicle met with an accident. The record further indicates that the

contraband was found in the conscious possession of the Applicant.
                                          3 of 3                  31-BA.586.2026



          8.        Prima facie, the record reveals compliance with the

          mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. The inventory was also

          prepared and certified before the learned Magistrate.


          9.        Considering the nature of the allegations, the quantity

          involved and the material collected during the investigation, I am of

          the view that the Applicant has failed to make out a case for grant of

          bail.


          10.       Hence, the application stands dismissed. No order as to costs.



                                            (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)

Tauseef


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.