Bombay High Court
VISHAL ASHOK GAIKWADversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
- Bench
- SACHIN S DESHMUKH
Holding
The court held that, due to the absence of a distinct record quantifying only the flowering tops, it could not be established that the seized quantity exceeded the commercial threshold, and therefore bail was granted.
Summary
The High Court considered bail applications filed by three accused in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act where 32.485 kg of cannabis material, including all parts of the plant, was seized. The prosecution argued that the quantity exceeded the commercial threshold and that the accused were complicit, while the defence contended that the law requires a specific quantification of the flowering tops (ganja) and that no criminal antecedents existed. The court examined the definition of "ganja" under Sections 2(b) and (c) of the NDPS Act and noted the absence of a separate record showing the amount of flowering tops alone. Consequently, it held that it could not be ascertained prima facie that the seized quantity constituted a commercial quantity under Section 20(b). On this basis, the court granted bail to all three applicants subject to a personal bond and standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the seized 32.485 kg of cannabis material qualifies as a 'commercial quantity' under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act.
- Whether the lack of specific quantification of the flowering tops (ganja) precludes the application of Section 20(b).
- Whether bail should be granted in view of the nature of the alleged offence and the material collected by the investigating officer.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act — s. 20(b), 22(b), 2(b), 2(c), 8(c)
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- commercial quantity
- ganja
- drug offence
- quantification
- court order
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:23610
Bail Appln. No.651/2026
:: 1 ::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
BAIL APPLICATION NO.651 OF 2026
Vishal s/o Ashok Gaikwad … APPLICANT
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra … RESPONDENT
.......
Mr. K.N. Shermale, Advocate for applicant
Mr. S.V. Hange, A.P.P. for respondent – State
....…
WITH
BAIL APPLICATION NO.564 OF 2026
Shubham s/o Chandrakant Jadhav … APPLICANT
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra … RESPONDENT
.......
Mr. K.N. Shermale, Advocate for applicant
Mr. S.V. Hange, A.P.P. for respondent – State
....…
WITH
BAIL APPLICATION NO.826 OF 2026
Pratamesh Ashok Pawde … APPLICANT
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra … RESPONDENT
.......
Mr. Y.S. Choudhari, Advocate for applicant
Mr. S.V. Hange, A.P.P. for respondent – State
....…
Bail Appln. No.651/2026
:: 2 ::
CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 12th JUNE, 2026
PER COURT :
1. By these applications, the applicants are seeking their
release on regular bail in connection with Crime No.1073/2025,
registered at Sangamner Police Station, District Ahilyanagar for the
offences punishable under Sections 20(b), 22(b), 8(c) of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
2. The prosecution case in short is that, on the basis of
secret information, a raid was conducted in the shop block of Vishal
Rahane in which the accused Shubham Chandrakant Jadhav,
Vishal Ashok gaikwad, pratamesh Ashok Pawde and Parvez Daud
Shaikh were found . It is alleged that, on search, 32 Kgs. 485 gms.
Narcotic drugs like Ganja was found A sample of 100 gms. each of
dry Ganja was taken for chamical analysis and the accused were
arrested.
3. Learned counsel for the respective applicants submit
that, the quantification of the alleged contraband is de hors of the
statutory provisions of the Act, which entitles the applicants to be
Bail Appln. No.651/2026
:: 3 ::
admitted to bail. It is further submitted that, there are no criminal
antecedents against the applicants. The applicants are innocent
and they have been falsely implicated in the present case. One of
the accused is already admitted to bail by the Special Court. The
learned counsel therefore prayed to allow the applications.
4. Per contra, learned A.P.P. vehemently opposed the
applications, submitting that the complicity of the applicants in the
offence is evident from the material collected by the investigating
officer. Substantial quantity of the contraband excluding
commercial quantity is seized. Procedure is applied by the
investigating officer, which disentitles the applicants to be admitted
to bail. He therefore prayed to reject the application.
5. Upon considering the submissions of both sides and
perusal of material on record, including the charge sheet, the
commercial quantity in relation to the N.D.P.S. Act is considered to
be 20 Kgs. or above. However, the expression ‘Ganja’ specifically
defines in Section 2(b) and (c) as the flowering and fruiting tops of
the cannabis plant (excluding the seeds and leaves when not
accompanied by the tops), by whatsoever the name they may be
known or designated, and any mixture, with or without any neutral
material, of any of the above forms of cannabis or any drink
Bail Appln. No.651/2026
:: 4 ::
prepared therefrom.
6. The expression ‘Ganja’ makes it abundantly clear that it
refers specifically to the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis
plant, excluding the seeds and leaves when they are not
accompanied by the tops.
7. In the present case, as is evident from the First
Information Report (F.I.R.), the seizure weighed 32.485 Kgs., which
comprised the cannabis elements along with all other parts of the
plant. There is no separate record available to indicate the specific
quantity of only the flowering and fruiting tops, the precise
components that legally constitute ‘Ganja’ as defined under the Act
(excluding seeks and leaves).
8. Therefore, at this juncture, prima facie, it remains
doubtful whether the alleged offence falls under Section 20(b) of
the N.D.P.S. Act. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, and ion
the absence of a distinct record quantifying solely the possession of
the flowering tops, it is highly questionable whether the total
quantity seized can reliably be regarded as exceeding the
commercial quantity threshold.
9. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the request of the
Bail Appln. No.651/2026
:: 5 ::
applicants warrants consideration.
10. Hence the order :
ORDER
(i) The Bail Applications are allowed.
(ii) The applicants Vishal s/o Ashok Gaikwad, Shubham s/o
Chandrakant Jadhav and Pratamesh Ashok Pawde be
released on bail upon furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rs.Fifty Thousand) each, with one or two local
solvent sureties, in the like amount, in connection with Crime
No.1073/2025, registered at Sangamner Police Station,
District Ahilyanagar for the offences punishable under
Sections 20(b), 22(b), 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, on the following conditions
that:-
(a) The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution
witnesses in any manner.
(b) The applicants shall remain present on each date,
unless exempted by the trial Court.
(c) In the event of breach of the condition, the concerned
Court shall consider the application of the
Bail Appln. No.651/2026
:: 6 ::
prosecution for cancellation of bail notwithstanding
the fact that this Court has passed this order of
granting bail to the applicants.
(iii) Needless to state that, the observations rendered herein are
confined to the present application, and the trial Court shall
not be influenced by the same.
(SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.)
fmp/-
Checking your session…