IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 861 OF 2025 SANTOSH @ BANDU PANDHARINATH NAWALE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA … Mr. Arvind Ramnath Kawade, Advocate for Applicant Mr. A. V. Lawate, APP for the Respondent/State WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 862 OF 2025 AMOL AMBADAS BHOSALE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA … Mr. Arvind Ramnath Kawade, Advocate for Applicant Mr. A. V. Lawate, APP for the Respondent/State CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATED : 10th JULY, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. The applicants apprehend arrest in connection with Crime No.130/2025, registered with Paithan Police Station, District Aurangabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 26(2)(i), 26(2)(ii), 26(2)(iv), 27(3) (e), 30(2)(a), 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and 223, 274, 275, 123 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 2. The First Information Report indicates that a raid was conducted in ABA 861, 862.2025.odt 1 of 3 2026:BHC-AUG:27445 which a considerably huge quantity of contraband gutkha was seized from the co-accused. On the basis of the statement of the co-accused, the prosecution seeks to implicate the present applicants in the crime. The applicants are alleged to be a supplier of the contraband gutkha. 3. Learned Advocate for the applicants submits that, except for the alleged statement of the co-accused, there is no evidence to connect the applicants with the crime. It is further argued that the statement of the co-accused has no evidentiary value and, in the absence of any other connecting evidence, the involvement of the applicants in the crime cannot be presumed. It is further argued that the applicants have no criminal antecedents; therefore, their liberty deserves to be protected. 4. Learned APP opposed the grant of relief to the applicants by citing the seriousness of the crime as well as the quantity of contraband seized at the instance of the co-accused. It is his submission that the statement of the co- accused may not be relevant at the trial; however, it can be considered by the Investigating Agency during the course of investigation. He, therefore, submits that the applications deserve to be rejected. 5. Prima facie, a perusal of the record indicates that the contraband gutkha was seized from the co-accused. No doubt, the statement of the co- ABA 861, 862.2025.odt 2 of 3 accused would be relevant for the purpose of further investigation. However, during the course of investigation, no further evidence has been collected against the present applicants showing any connection between the applicants and the co-accused. In the absence of any such evidence, it cannot be held, at this stage, that the applicants are connected with the crime in question. 6. In view of this, Applications are allowed in terms of interim order. ( R. M. JOSHI, J.) ssp ABA 861, 862.2025.odt 3 of 3