BALRAM S/O DHANA BURDI AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR PSO., MANKAPUR PS, NAGPUR CITY
BA/973/2026 · 2026-09-23
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 10523 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 10523 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1 23.ba.973.26 IN THE HIGH
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 973 OF 2026 Balram s/o Dhana Burdi and ors. ..vs.. State of Maharashtra - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri P.P. Giri, Advocate a/w Shri S.A. Dutonde, Advocate for the applicants. Ms T.H. Udeshi, APP for the State thr. V.C.
CORAM: M.M. NERLIKAR, J.
DATE : 23.09.2026. Heard.
2. By way of this application, the applicant are seeking bail in connection with Crime No.12 of 2026 registered with Mankapur Police Station, Nagpur for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
3. It is alleged in the FIR that on 08.01.2026, the police official on patrolling duty noticed that at 4:00 a.m. one Nissan Sunny of white colour bearing registration No. HR-29-AZ-4166 was parked suspiciously. Accordingly, upon enquiry, one person from the car ran away and three persons were apprehended. During investigation of the car, a tin compartment was found in the dicky of the car, in which Ganja was hidden in 15 plastic bags, out of which one bag got torn during opening of the compartment, from which wet greenish- black leaves with seeds having a strong odour Ganja was found. Accordingly, 29 kg 100 grams of Ganja worth Rs. 5,82,000/- was seized from the spot. Hence, the FIR. 2026:BHC-NAG:12617
2 23.ba.973.26
4.
Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that merely on the basis of suspicion, the applicants have been arrested. He further submits that only content of one packet seen, as the said packet was torn during the opening of the said tin compartment. Though 15 packets were found in the car, the rest of the packets were not opened and they were directly produced before the Magistrate for certifying inventory, after two days. Therefore, it is submitted that it is not clear whether the other packets contained Ganja or not as the packets were not opened during the raid and merely it was presumed that as one packet contained Ganja, other packets also contain Ganja; Therefore, since other packets were not opened it cannot be said to be said that commercial quantity of ganja was seized. Learned Counsel for the applicant further submits that the car does not belong to the applicants, and they were merely using the car and that by itself is not sufficient to connect the applicants with the alleged crime. Considering the facts and the documents annexed along with the charge-sheet, and that the applicants are in jail since 08.01.2026, applicants deserve to be granted bail. 5. On the other hand, the learned APP vehemently opposed the application. She submitted that the applicants were acting in a suspicious manner and when the constable inquired with them, they gave evasive answers. Therefore, he informed his Superior Officer, and accordingly, the Police Sub-Inspector came and upon inquiry, it was found that they were carrying Ganja, which was hidden in the compartment of the dicky. Accordingly, while opening the compartment, one
3 23.ba.973.26 packet was torn and the other 14 packets were seized and weight of the packets was 29.100 kilograms, worth Rs. 5,82,000/-. She further submits that all the packets had pungent smell and, therefore, all the bags contained Ganja. She further invited my attention to the inventory, which shows that the bags were opened in front of the Magistrate, and accordingly, the samples were taken. Considering the fact that the bags were sealed on the spot and only opened before the Magistrate for inventory, no doubt can be raised on the seizure of contraband. She further submits that all the applicants are from the State of Odisha and the Ganja was also brought from the said State.
Under such circumstances, considering the commercial quantity and that the applicants were caught red-handed on the spot, she prayed for the application to be rejected. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. It appears from the FIR that on suspicious movement of the applicants, an inquiry was made. Upon which, it was disclosed that they had hidden Ganja in the dicky of the car. Accordingly, a tin compartment was found in the dicky of the car and while opening the tin compartment, one packet was torn, in which Ganja was found. It further appears that the rest of the packets were not opened; however, they were directly weighed, which was found to be 29.100 kilograms. The said packets were sealed on the spot, and after two days, the inventory was done in front of the Magistrate. Question before this Court is when the other packets were not opened on the spot and not verified, under such circumstances, whether it can be presumed
4 23.ba.973.26 that even those packets which were not opened contained ganja. Admittedly, only one packet was opened on the spot and the other packets were directly sealed. There was no verification of the other packets. It is further to be noted that all the seized packets were sent for inventory on the next day, i.e., on 09.01.2026. They were only verified at the time of inventory, which was conducted after two days. It is to be noted that the entire seized material was with the police that is from its seizure on 08.01.2026, until the material was sent to the Magistrate. Under such circumstances, when the packets themselves were not opened, it cannot be said that those packets contained Ganja, in the absence of any cogent material.
Though learned APP tried to point out contents of FIR and seizure panchanama, however when the packets itself were not opened, therefore merely on presumption it is very difficult to hold that even those packets which were not opened contained ganja. Therefore, it is very difficult to accept the fact that 29.100 kilograms of Ganja was seized from the spot. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that this is fatal to the case of the prosecution and further inventory would not be helpful for the prosecution since the seized articles were in the custody of the police till it was produced before the Magistrate. Therefore, considering the above
facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicants. Hence the following order : (a) The application is allowed. (b) The applicants Balram s/o Dhana Burdi, 2. Pradipkumar s/o Shyamkamur Das, 3. Surendra s/o
5 23.ba.973.26 Dhanraj Pujari and 4. Jatin s/o Madan Killo in connection with Crime No.12 of 2026 registered with Mankapur Police Station, Nagpur for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii) (c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 be released on bail on furnishing P.R. bond of Rs.1,00,000/- each, with two solvent sureties i.e. one local surety from Nagpur and another from the city of permanent residence of the applicants, in the like amount. (c) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, as also shall not tamper with the evidence. (d) The accused shall provide their residential address and cell number to Police Station concerned and shall not change their place of residence without prior intimation to the Investigating Agency. (e) The accused shall attend each and every date of trial regularly. If they fail to attend the trial for a single date, or fail to comply with the aforesaid conditions, their default would entail the State to ask for cancellation of bail.
7. The observations are prima facie in nature and the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the same .
8. All Misc. application(s), pending if any, shall stands disposed of accordingly.
(M.M. NERLIKAR
, J. ) Trupti Signed by: Trupti D. Agrawal Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 23/09/2026 19:03:44