Order 300926ba1204.26 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION [BA] NO. 1204 OF 2026. Anup Kumar Durga Saha -VERSUS- State of Maharashtra Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. Shri A.K. Bhangde, Advocate for the Applicant. Shri U.R. Phasate, A.P.P. for the Non-applicant /State. CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 30, 2026. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The applicant came to be arrested in connection with Crime No.2/2026 registered with Itwara Police Station (Lohmarg), Nagpur for the offences punishable under Sections 20[b][ii][c] and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS). 3. The first information report came to be lodged by Avinash Narnavare, a Police Official alleging that on 22.01.2026 while the police party was patrolling on the railway Rgd. 2026:BHC-NAG:13111 Order 300926ba1204.26 2 station, at that time, from one coach pungent smell was noticed. On checking, two trolley bags and 4 sack bags were found below two berths. From the details provided by the Railways, the berths were occupied by the accused persons. After completing necessary formalities the first information report came to be lodged alleging that the accused persons were carrying Ganja weighing 60.750 kgs worth Rs.9,11,250/-. 4. The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that there are only two circumstances against the applicant, on the basis of which he is made accused in the case. First statement of co-accused Vickey was recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, wherein he has disclosed name of the applicant. To this, the learned Counsel submits that the applicant was taken in custody prior to recording of the said statement, meaning thereby, when the applicant was taken in custody, there was no material before the investigating officer to arrest the applicant. He further submits that the investigating officer went to the house of the applicant in search of his father, however, as his father was not found, the applicant was taken in custody. So far as the second circumstances is concerned, it is in respect of CDRs between the applicant and other co-accused namely Rgd. Order 300926ba1204.26 3 Vickey and Chandeshwar. The learned Counsel contended that the applicant is 19 years of age, and even the accused Vickey is 19 years of age, therefore, the calls are not regarding business transactions, but, made due to friendly relationship between them. Therefore, even if the calls are made, still the applicant cannot be connected with the alleged crime, since contraband was found from the conscious possession of Vickey and Chandeshwar, and not from the applicant. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in case of State (By NCB) Bengaluru .vrs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta and another – [2022] 12 SCC 633 (and bunch of petitions), wherein according to the learned Counsel the issue of CDR between the accused persons was said to be a matter to be considered at the stage of trial. He has also relied on the judgment of this Court in case of Bhudhara Nag .vrs. State of Maharashtra – 2025 All MR (Cri) 3804, wherein according to the learned Counsel for the applicant in identical situation, the accused therein were granted bail, and therefore, he submits that the applicant deserves to be granted bail. 5. On the other hand learned A.P.P. vehemently opposed the application and submitted that applicant and his Rgd. Order 300926ba1204.26 4 father are engaged in the business of ganja. He further submits that about 60.750 kgs, of ganja was found in possession of Vickey and Chandeshwar. He submits that Vickey in his statement disclosed name of the applicant and his father, upon which the applicant was arrested. So also in the accused persons have taken name of applicant in their statement recorded under Section 67. He further submits that the CDR goes to show that there are number of calls between the applicant and co-accused in whose possession ganja was found. In such circumstances, applicant does not deserve to be released on bail. 6. Upon consideration of the submissions of the parties, it appears that ganja weighing about 60.750 kgs. was found in possession of the co-accused Vickey and Chandeshwar. It further appears that the said Vickey disclosed name of applicant and his father, accordingly applicant was arrested. Further the applicant was also named in the statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. Apart from that the CDR also shows that there are calls between the applicant and both the co- accused Vickey and Chandeshwar. As observed in the judgment of Supreme Court in case of State (By NCB) Bengaluru (supra), in paragraph no.12 that the CDR will be Rgd. Order 300926ba1204.26 5 examined at the stage of trial and accordingly the Supreme Court declined to cancel the bail of accused persons, however, bail of those who were found in conscious possession of the contraband was cancelled. This Court while considering the identical situation in case of Bhudhara Nag (supra), in paragraph no.8 observed as under: “After hearing both the sides and perusing the investigating papers, admittedly, the applicant was not found in possession of any contraband article when the co-accused were intercepted by the GRP. During investigation with them, name of co-accused Sushil Agrawal was revealed and, therefore, he was arrested. During interrogation with said Sushil Agrawal, it revealed to the investigating officer that the contraband article is procured from the applicant and, therefore, applicant is arrested. After his arrest, his statement under section 67 of the NDPS Act is recorded by the GRP from which it revealed that he is involved in supplying contraband article through said Sushil Agrawal. He used to obtain cash amount from said Sushil Agrawal. The screenshots collected during investigation show the transactions between Sushil Agrawal and the other co-accused. The extracts of the register of hotel disclose that other co-accused stayed in the hotel at Odisha. As far as the applicant is concerned, the CDRs show that there were calls between the applicant and Sushil Agrawal on 1.6.2024 (8 in numbers). Rgd. Order 300926ba1204.26 6 Except the CDRs and the statement of the applicant under 67 of the NDPS Act, there is no other material to connect the applicant with the alleged offence.” Therefore, considering the above exposition of law and present facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that merely on the basis of Section 67 statement of co-accused and CDR the applicant cannot be kept behind bars for indefinite period, and hence, the following order. ORDER (i) Criminal Application is allowed and disposed of. (ii) The applicant /accused Anup Kumar Durga Saha be released on regular bail in connection with Crime No.2/2026 registered with Itwara Police Station (Lohmarg), Nagpur Railway for the offences punishable under Sections 20[b][ii][c] and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS), on his furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the like amount, i.e. one local surety and one surety from Bihar State where he originally resides. (iii) The accused shall not commit similar type of offence in future, and if he committs, the State is at liberty to seek for cancellation of bail in the present crime. (iv) The accused shall not directly or indirectly make Rgd. Order 300926ba1204.26 7 any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, as also shall not tamper with the evidence. (v) The accused shall provide his residential address and cell number to Police Station concerned and shall not change his place of residence without prior intimation to the Investigating Agency. (vi) The accused shall attend each and every date of trial regularly. If he fails to attend the trial for one single date, or fails to comply with the aforesaid conditions, his default would entail the State to ask for cancellation of bail. (vii) The above observations are prima facie in nature, and restricted for the purpose of deciding this application. The Trial Court shall not get itself influenced by said observations, during the course of trial. (viii) Misc. Applications, if any, are also disposed of. JUDGE Rgd. Signed by: R.G. Dhuriya (RGD) Designation: Senior Pvt. Secretary Date: 03/10/2026 12:58:36