-1- 901-BA-1355-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1355 OF 2026 UTTAM BABAN PADVAL VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..... Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Chaitanya Chandrakant Deshpande APP for Respondent - State : Mr. S. A. Gaikwad ..… CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. DATED : 22nd SEPTEMBER, 2026 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for respondent – State. With the able assistance of both the learned counsel, I have gone through the entire copy of the charge- sheet and the investigation papers. 2. The present application is filed by the applicant herein seeking regular bail in connection with his arrest in FIR bearing No. 1072 of 2025, registered with Sangamner City Police Station, District Ahilyanagar, dated 11.12.2025. The applicant came to be arrested in connection with the present offence on 11.12.2025. 3. The prosecution alleges that, during the raid which was carried out on 11.12.2025, 327 kilograms of ganja was recovered 2026:BHC-AUG:43891 -2- 901-BA-1355-2026 from a locked room near the applicant's residence and 129 kilograms from a Piaggio Ape vehicle. The applicant was present at his residence when the raid was carried out. On being specifically asked by the raiding team to hand over the keys to open the lock of the premises, it is alleged that the present applicant got the key from his residence and opened the room in which the contraband was found. In respect of the vehicle, he stated that the vehicle belonged to him but was being used by his son Tushar. According to the prosecution, Tushar and the other accused persons had procured the substance and stored it for sale. The seizure papers describing flowering and fruiting tops and the charge-sheet records a positive laboratory result. 4. Learned Advocate for the applicant submits that the room had been given for another person's use and the applicant did not know what was stored there. Nothing objectionable was recovered from his person or from the portion occupied by him. The vehicle, though belonging to him, was being used by his son Tushar, who is also a co-accused and is arrested and presently in custody. Learned Advocate submits that the other material, including the videography relied upon by the prosecution, does not show the present applicant handling, procuring or selling the substance. He further submits that the applicant is 55 years of age -3- 901-BA-1355-2026 and has no criminal antecedents. He has been languishing in custody since 11.12.2025, and therefore, he deserves to be released on bail. 5. He further makes a legal submission pertaining to the inventory which was carried out before the Magistrate, as required under Section 52A, which does not refer to the recovered substance as having any flowering tops or fruiting tops. He submits that what has been mentioned therein is only green and smelly leaves. He then refers to the FSL report, which mentions flowering tops and fruiting tops in each and every sample that has been submitted. He submits that this glaring discrepancy in the prosecution record creates a reasonable doubt and therefore, at this stage, the Court should exercise its discretion and release the applicant on bail. 6. Learned APP opposes the application. He submits that the substance that has been recovered is ganja and the same has been throughout described in the prosecution case. Though the inventory carried out before the Magistrate does not make reference to fruiting tops and flowering tops, according to him, this cannot be a glaring discrepancy, as the object of Section 52A is only to conduct panchnama before an independent authority. This -4- 901-BA-1355-2026 compliance has been done. According to him, the prosecution has sufficiently placed on record the material supporting that the substance that has been recovered is ganja, which falls within the definition as provided under the NDPS Act. He makes reference to the the seizure panchnama carried out by the police and also the FSL report. He thus submits that the applicant, though claims to be the owner and have no knowledge, at this stage, cannot be assessed for the simple reason that a huge quantity of ganja has been found in premises that was belonging to the present applicant and also from the auto-rickshaw which belongs to the present applicant. He thus submits that there is ample material available on record and, in this serious offence, the applicant should not be released on bail. 7. The quantity involved is commercial and the conditions in Section 37 must therefore be met, is one of the thrusts of the arguments of the applicant. The applicant's possession of the room and his connection with the vehicle are also circumstances of consequences. They have been considered together with the substantial recoveries and cannot be brushed aside. Yet the recovery was from the room, separate from the portion of the house occupied by him, where nothing objectionable was found. The applicant's explanation that another person used the room and that Tushar used to use the vehicle must be tested at the time of -5- 901-BA-1355-2026 trial. On the material identified in the course of this hearing, no act of procuring transport or sale by the applicant, nor any material particulars, communication, or financial transaction demonstrating his knowledge of the contents, has been pointed out. His ownership and his ability to open the room raise suspicion, but when viewed with the identified use by others and the absence of material showing his own participation, they do not presently establish knowing possession on his part. 8. Learned Advocate for applicant has also questioned the description of the substance in the Magistrate's inventory. On examining the relevant entries, however, it is seen that flowering and fruiting tops are mentioned in respect of the sample packets. That objection does not assist the applicant at this stage. The Court proceeds on the footing that the prosecution has material to establish recovery of a commercial quantity of ganja. The question material to this application is whether the applicant knowingly possessed the substance or knowingly participated in its storage or sale. Upon considering the entire material presently identified against the present applicant individually, I find reasonable grounds for believing that he may not be guilty of the offence, at least at this stage. I find reasonable grounds for believing that the material alleged by the prosecution at this stage against present -6- 901-BA-1355-2026 applicant requires to be tested before the Trial Court with the support of material evidence. Prima facie, the applicant has no reported antecedents. Investigation concerning him has resulted in a charge-sheet, and conditions securing his attendance and preventing interference with the evidence sufficiently address the likelihood of his involvement in any offence while on bail. Both requirements of Section 37 are thus satisfied for the limited purpose of this application. Hence, the following order :- ORDER (i) The Bail Application is allowed. (ii) The applicant - Uttam Baban Padval shall be released on bail in Crime No. No. 1072 of 2025, registered with Sangamner City Police Station, District Ahilyanagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii), 25 and 29 of NDPS Act, on furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount, subject to the following conditions : a) The applicant shall not enter Sukewadi village, Tq. Sangamner till framing of charge. The applicant shall stay outside the said village for the said period. b) The applicant shall attend the concerned police station on every Monday of every month between 10:00 a.m. and 02:00 p.m. till framing of charge and thereafter shall regularly attend each and every effective date before the trial court. -7- 901-BA-1355-2026 c) Before his release, he shall furnish to the Investigating Officer and the Trial Court the address at which he will reside during the said period and his mobile number, and shall intimate any change thereof. d) The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, contact, threaten, induce or influence the informant or any prosecution witness and shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence. e) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court and, if he possess passport, shall deposit the same with the trial Court within seven days of his release. f) The applicant shall not involve himself in any offence of a similar nature while on bail. g) Breach of any of the above conditions shall entitle the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail. h) All observations in this order are prima facie and confined to the decision of this bail application. The trial Court shall decide the case independently on the evidence led before it. (iii) The Bail Application is disposed of in the above terms. (HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR) JUDGE Tandale