Bombay High Court
SADASHIV PARAJI GAIKWADversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- SHIVKUMAR DIGE
Holding
The court granted bail to the applicant subject to a cash bond, sureties and specific conditions.
Summary
The applicant, Sadashiv Paraji Gaikwad, was arrested in connection with a seizure of 61.5 grams of mephedrone and charged under Sections 8(c), 22(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The prosecution alleged his involvement through call records, bank transactions and a breach of externment conditions, while the defence argued that no narcotics were found in his possession and that the trial had been delayed for over a year and a half. The court examined the charge‑sheet and the lack of direct evidence linking the applicant to the seized drugs. Considering the applicant’s prolonged pre‑trial detention, the absence of possession evidence, and the need to balance the risk of absconding with the right to liberty, the judge granted regular bail with a monetary bond and several conditions. The order also prohibited the applicant from entering Nashik district until charges are framed and barred him from tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. The bail order was made subject to compliance with these conditions and the trial was left to proceed on its merits.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in an NDPS case where the accused is alleged to have facilitated the supply of narcotics but no possession is established.
- Whether the applicant’s antecedents, call records, bank transactions and breach of externment condition justify denial of bail.
- Whether the prolonged pre‑trial detention and trial delay warrant the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 22(c), 29, 8(c)
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- drug trafficking
- pre‑trial detention
- antecedents
- trial delay
- conditions of bail
Judgment
904-BA-671-2026 (CR).docx
Rohit Ghuge
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 671 OF 2026
Sadashiv Paraji Gaikwad ...APPLICANT
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra ...RESPONDENT
_________________________________________________________________
Mr. Aniket Vagal a/w Ms. Savvy Kolhekar a/w Ms. Juhi Kadu, Advocate for
Applicants.
Mr. B. B. Kulkarni, APP for Respondent-State.
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 8th MAY, 2026.
P.C. :
1. By this application, the applicant is seeking regular bail in
Crime No. 412 of 2024 registered with Indira Nagar Police Station, for the
offences punishable under Sections 8(c) and 22(c) and 29 of The Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
2. It is prosecution’s case on 06th December 2024, on receiving
secrete information, police apprehended three co-accused and in their
possession police found 61.5 gm of Mephedrone. It is alleged that, the said
Mephedrone has provided by the applicant by taking from accused no. 4.
3. It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant nothing is
found in possession of the applicant. Applicant is behind bars for more
than 1 years and 6 months. There is no progress in the trial and requested
to allow the application.
Page 1 of 3
904-BA-671-2026 (CR).docx
Rohit Ghuge
4. It is contention of learned APP that applicant has antecedents.
There were call records between the applicant and co-accused and bank
transactions also between them. It shows involvement of the applicant in
the crime. He was deported from Nashik City on 14 th November, 2024 for
two years, but during that period, he breached the externment condition. If
the Applicant released on bail, he may abscond or threaten and
prosecution witnesses, and requested to reject the Application.
5. I have heard both learned counsel, perused the charge-sheet,
and documents produced on record.
6. The Applicant has been arrested on the say of co-accused. To
prove the role of the applicant in crime, evidence is required. The
Applicant is behind bars for more one year and six month. It may take time
to conclude the trial.
7. Considering these facts, I pass following order.
ORDER
(i) The applicant be enlarged on bail in in Crime No. 412 of 2024
registered with Indira Nagar Police Station, on executing
P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in
the like amount.
(ii) The applicant shall attend the concerned police station as and
when required.
Page 2 of 3
904-BA-671-2026 (CR).docx
Rohit Ghuge
(iii) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to
influence or contact the complaint, witnesses or any person
concerned with the case.
(iv) The applicant shall not enter in Nashik District till framing of
charges.
The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is
accordingly disposed of.
8. It is made clear that the above observations are made only for
the purpose of granting bail and the Trial Court shall decide the case on its
own merits in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the observations
made in this order.
9. All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 3 of 3
Checking your session…