P.H. JAYANI 12 BA3486.2026.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3486 OF 2026 Raunak Rahul Khandelwal …. applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra …Respondent Mr. Aabad Ponda, Sr. Advocate a/w. Ms. Pushpa Ganediwala, Mr. Ayaz Khan, Mr. Bhushan Shinde, Mr. Ishan Agrawal, Mr.Pradyumna Agrawal and Mr. Anshu Agrawal i/b. Tenax Legal LLP for the applicant. Mr. Tanveer Khan, APP for the Respondent – State (through VC). Mr. Mahale, PI, IO and Ms. Pradnya Kalgukar, ASI, Vanrai Police Station, present. CORAM: SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J. DATED : 22nd SEPTEMBER, 2026 P.C. :- 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record. 2. The present Application seeking release of the applicant on bail in Cr.No.228/2026 registered with Vanrai Police Station, Mumbai for the offences punishable under Sections 105, 123, 125, 125(b), 223(b), 61(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”) r/w. Section 65 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 and Sections 8(c), 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS”) on the report dated 13.04.2026 filed by Mr. Rahul Hankare, PSI, Vanrai Police Station. 3. In brief, the prosecution story is that, on 11.04.2026, there was a music concert (“concert”) at NESCO Exhibition Centre Hall No.5, Goregaon (E), Mumbai. The applicant, one Sheetal Salvi, her friend Shreya Rai and around 25 other college students decided to P.H. JAYANI 12 BA3486.2026.DOC attend the said concert. The concert was organised by co-accused Akash Samal and Sunny Jain, the organizer of NESCO Goregaon, Mumbai. There, the applicant-Raunak Khandelwal gave a ecstasy pill to Sheetal, which the latter consumed. Shreya also took a similar pill. The investigation with applicant revealed that the yellow ecstasy pill which he had given was a scheduled drug under NDPS Act. However, he gave that pill to Sheetal Salvi. While dancing in the crowd, both Sheetal Salvi and Shreya Rai suddenly felt difficulty in breathing and dizziness which led their friends to admit them to Trauma hospital. 3.1 One Bismat Singh Amarjit Singh Bhasin, aged 28 years, (Bismat Singh) had also attended the concert, where, he had consumed alcoholic beverage. After the music concert ended, Bismat Singh felt unwell and therefore, he was brought to Lifeline Medicare Hospital for treatment, where, he eventually passed away. On 12/04/2026, at about 13.24 hrs, Vanrai police station received a message from Mr. Ghangav, PSI, attached to Azad Maidan police station, Mumbai that Shreya Rai had expired while undergoing medical treatment at Bombay Hospital and Sheetal Salvi was admitted in I.C.U. Accordingly, Accidental Death Report Nos. 20 and 21 of 2026 were registered and enquiry was conducted. 3.2 The said crime was registered against the applicant and the co-accused for allegedly providing the ecstasy tablet for consumption and thereby knowingly permitting, facilitating and carrying of the said narcotic substance inside the concert which ultimately led to the death of Bismat Singh and Shreya Rai and serious injury to Sheetal Salvi. The trial court declined the applicant from being released on bail. Hence, this bail application. Page 2 of 6 P.H. JAYANI 12 BA3486.2026.DOC 4. Mr. Ponda, the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submitted that there is no material against the applicant to attract the charge of the offence u/S. 105 of the BNS. As alleged, the applicant had supplied in all 14 pills of the contraband substance MDMA (ecstasy) weighing 8 to 9 grams to his co-students present in the concert. In any case, it is an intermediate quantity. Therefore, bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not attracted. Since the investigation is over, therefore, further detention of the applicant is not required. This entitles the applicant for bail. 5. In reply, Mr. Khan, the learned APP submitted that at the relevant time, the applicant along with Pratik Pandey and witness Sheetal Salvi had created a whatsapp group and through that group, the applicant had called for the demands for the said drug from his co-students who were the members of the whatsApp group. The applicant then collected money from those who were willing to purchase and consume the drug. Further, the applicant paid that money to co-accused Anand Patel and obtained the pills from co-accsued Ayush Sahitya through co-accused Pratik Pandey, Vinit Gerelani and Shubh Agrawal. Ultimately, the pills were distributed amongst the co-students/members of the whatsApp group. He submitted that total 933 such pills weighing 435 grams were recovered from Ayush Sathiya. Also,from house of Vinit Agrawal, such tablets weighing 3.5 grams were recovered. Thus, there is a prima facie case against the applicant of having committed this offence and he is not entitled for bail. 6. I have considered these submissions in the light of the material before me. It revealed that prima facie, the applicant had procured the drug pills as alleged by the prosecution However, it is not the case that the applicant was habitually dealing in the P.H. JAYANI 12 BA3486.2026.DOC contraband substance. On the contrary, it appears that, the applicant and his co-students only wanted to consume that drug while enjoying the music concert. However, there is nothing on record based on which it may be said that the applicant knew that by consuming that pill one may die or he had intended such a consequence upon consumption of the pill by any of his co- students. Secondly, it is not alleged that the applicant had supplied that drug pill to the deceased Bismat Singh. Moreover, nothing is pointed from the record to blame the applicant for consumption of that pill alongwith or after consuming alcohol by the victims. Consequently, at this stage, it would be a far fetched view that the applicant had intended that, said drug be consumed by the deceased and others alongwith or mixing it with alcohol. Therefore, whether the applicant is liable for the offence of Section 105 of BNS is a question of trial. 6.1 It is a matter of record that maximum, the applicant may be liable for procuring intermediate quantity of the contraband. Said offence is punishable with imprisonment upto 10 years. Therefore, the rigors of Section 37 of NDPS is not applicable to this case. Since the investigation is over, further detention of the applicant in jail will not serve any purpose. Considering the volume of the evidence collected during the course of investigation, it appears that the trial of this case will not be over in a foreseeable future. The co-accused who were charged for the same offence with more or less similar allegations are granted bail. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. He is the permanent resident of the given address. He is not likely to repeat the offence. 7. In the wake of the above, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail. Hence, following Order :- P.H. JAYANI 12 BA3486.2026.DOC (i) The applicant - Raunak Rahul Khandelwal be released on bail in Cr.No.228/2026 registered with Vanrai Police Station, Mumbai for the offences punishable under Sections 105, 123, 125, 125(b), 223(b), 61(2), 3(5) of the BNS r/w. Section 65 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act and Sections 8(c), 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act, on his executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. (ii) The applicant shall mark his attendance at Vanrai Police Station, Mumbai once in a month between 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. till conclusion of the trial. (iii) The applicant shall regularly attend the proceedings before the jurisdictional Court unless exempted by the said Court, for the reasons to be recorded in writing. (iv) The applicant shall not indulge in identical activities for which he has been arraigned in this case. (v) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall not directly or indirectly influence the prosecution witnesses to prevent them from deposing against him. (vi) On being released from jail, the applicant shall furnish his contact number and residential address to the Investigating Officer and shall keep him updated in case there is any change. (vii) It is clarified that any observation made in the present Order are for the purpose of deciding the present Bail Application and should not influence the outcome of the P.H. JAYANI 12 BA3486.2026.DOC trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 8. At this stage, as requested by Mr. Ponda, the learned Senior Counsel, the applicant is granted four weeks time to furnish the surety. Till then, the applicant be released on bail on his executing a P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and depositing a sum of Rs.50,000/- in lieu of furnishing the surety. On furnishing such surety/ies, the amount of Rs.50,000/- deposited by the applicant shall be returned. 9. Bail Application stands disposed of in aforesaid terms. (SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.) PREETI HEERO JAYANI Digitally signed by PREETI HEERO JAYANI Date: 2026.09.23 19:13:24 +0530