R/CR.MA/11698/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 11698 of 2026 ========================================================== GANESHBHAI RAGHUNATH INDREKAR Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance: MR SIKANDER SAIYED(3458) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS ZAINAB SIKANDER SAIYED(18345) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS VRUNDA SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 30/07/2026 ORDER RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent – State of Gujarat. [1.0] The present bail application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) for regular bail in connection with complaint being CR No.11191011260015 of 2026 registered with DCB Police Station, Ahmedabad City for the offence under Sections 8(C), 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as “NDPS Act”). [2.0] Heard learned advocate for the applicant and learned APP for respondent – State of Gujarat. [3.0] The case of the prosecution is that on 17.01.2026 at around 21.30 hours, Police Inspector Mr. D.P. Unadkat alongwith two government panchas and police staff personnel conducted raid in the R/CR.MA/11698/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026 verandah (Osari) of the house of the accused No.1 and caught her red- handed with conscious possession of 20 Kg 100 Grams of Ganja worth Rs.10,05,000/- and it is alleged that the present applicant is the real brother of accused No.1 who was caught red-handed with the above Ganja quantity and it is also alleged that applicant used to go to Nandurbar to bring the Ganja quantity while at times not arrested accused Nos.2 and 3 both come and deliver the Ganja quantity in Gujarat which was being sold by the present applicant in wholesale in Chharanagar area of Ahmedabad. Thus, all the accused in collusion and connivance of each other are involved in the offence. [4.0] Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is arrested on 17.01.2026 and is languishing in jail since then. He has further submitted that trial may take long time to conclude and has requested for bail on the ground of delay in trial. He has also argued that the applicant is arraigned as an accused on the basis of statement of co-accused and nothing is required to be recovered or discovered from the present applicant. He has therefore submitted that conclusion of trial will obviously take considerable time and therefore, he has requested to grant bail to the applicant as he is falsely implicated in the offence and for the same act, two FIRs have been registered. [5.0] Learned APP has vehemently opposed the present application on the ground that during the investigation sufficient material is collected against the present applicant. He has further submitted that based on specific intelligence, raid was conducted and real sister of the present applicant is found with conscious possession of 20 Kg 100 Grams of Ganja, which is more than commercial quantity and therefore, rigors of section 37 of the NDPS Act would be applicable. Page 2 of 12 R/CR.MA/11698/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026 He has also argued that statements of witnesses have been recorded which corroborate the case of prosecution and involvement of present applicant in trafficking of the narcotic drugs. It is submitted that present applicant is having past antecedent of similar nature and still he has indulged in similar illegal activity and therefore, considering rigors of section 37 of the NDPS Act, applicant is not entitled to any relief from this Court. He has also argued that if the applicant is released on bail, possibility of tampering with evidence and flight risk of the applicant cannot be ruled out. So far as ground of delay in trial urged on behalf of the applicant is concerned, he has submitted that prosecution is ready and willing to examine witnesses on day to day basis for expeditious disposal of the trial. He has therefore submitted to dismiss the present application. [6.0] Perusing the investigation papers and charge-sheet papers, it appears that on 17.01.2026 at around 21.30 hours, Police Inspector Mr. D.P. Unadkat alongwith two government panchas and police staff personnel conducted raid in the verandah (Osari) of the house of the accused No.1 and caught her red-handed with conscious possession of 20 Kg 100 Grams of Ganja worth Rs.10,05,000/- and it is alleged that the present applicant is the real brother of accused No.1 who was caught red-handed with the above Ganja quantity and it is also alleged that applicant used to go to Nandurbar to bring the Ganja quantity while at times accused Nos.2 and 3 both, who are yet to be arrested, come and deliver the Ganja quantity in Gujarat which was being sold by the present applicant in wholesale in Chharanagar area of Ahmedabad. Thus, the quantity involved in the present offence is 20 Kg 100 Grams of Ganja, which is obviously commercial quantity of prohibited narcotic drug and therefore, rigors of section 37 of the NDPS Act is applicable. Prima facie involvement of applicant is found R/CR.MA/11698/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026 on the basis of sufficient material collected during investigation. Sufficient material and evidence has been collected by the investigating agency to establish that the present applicant used to sell the said contraband in Ahmedabad. One more aspect is required to be considered that the recovered contraband Ganja is of commercial quantity. Hence, rigors of Section 37 of the Act would be applicable and therefore, applicant is facing serious charge under Section 29 of the NDPS Act. Further, considering the rigors of section 37 of the NDPS Act, it is mandatory requirement to adhere to the statutory requirement while granting bail in the case of commercial quantity under the NDPS Act. Herein, in the case on hand, though the contraband is not found from the conscious possession of the applicant, muddamal was recovered from the conscious possession of the real sister of the present applicant and hence, rigors of section 37 of the NDPS Act would be applicable in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Meghalaya vs. Lalrintluanga Sailo and Another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine (SC) 1751. Hence, it reveals from the investigation papers that there is live link of the present applicant with the drug peddler and the persons who are indulged in drug trafficking. Hence, the argument canvassed by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicant that rigors of section 37 of the NDPS Act will not be applicable, is not acceptable and there is substance in argument canvassed by the learned APP. [6.1] One more aspect which is required to be considered is that learned advocate for the applicant has argued and sought bail on the ground of delay in trial. It is needless to say that delay in trial is not a panacea everytime to get rid of custody and to continue such illegal activity more especially when rigors of section 37 of the NDPS Act is applicable and possibility to indulge in similar activities again since the R/CR.MA/11698/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026 applicant is having similar nature of past antecedents and he has misused his liberty. Insofar as the submission made on behalf of the applicant that the trial will take considerable time and therefore, applicant is entitled to bail considering concept of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is concerned, it is true that accused has right to speedy trial in case of ordinate delay in trial since it amounts to violation of fundamental right of an accused and this Court has also considered the said fact in many cases but herein argument canvassed by learned Advocate for the applicant is not accepted as the applicant is arrested on 17.01.2026 and has remained in judicial custody approximately for 6 months which includes the statutory period i.e. investigation, right to get copies of documents, statutory period for filing of a discharge application, which is followed by pre-cognizance hearing under Section 223(1) of the BNSS. Further, in view of Sections 29 and 37 of the NDPS Act and having regard to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Balraj Singh @ Billa reported in 2026 INSC 618, mere delay in trial cannot by itself be a ground for granting bail when the offence involves commercial quantity and the prima facie involvement of the accused is evident from the record. At this stage, it is also appropriate to refer to the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora [2026 INSC 401], wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled that the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 cannot bypass the strict statutory requirements of Section 37 for commercial drug quantities. [6.2] Another argument canvassed by the learned advocate for the applicant is that applicant is falsely enroped in the offence since earlier one offence was registered and subsequently, as an off-shoot of the said offence, conducting the raid at the house of sister of R/CR.MA/11698/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026 present applicant, applicant is enroped in second offence. Perusing the record, it appears that first offence was registered with Ahmedabad Railway Police Station in the morning and it was independent offence while present offence is registered by the DCB Police Station and during the raid at the house of accused No.1, who happens to be the real sister of the present applicant and the present applicant had supplied the contraband and used to supply the said contraband and thereafter packing in small packages, applicant used to further sell the contraband. Thus, the applicant is the supplier and hatching conspiracy with his sister, the applicant has engaged in drug trafficking activity. Both the offences and quantity of contraband involved in both the offences is different and real sister of the applicant is found in conscious possession of the contraband and thus, the applicant was having the knowledge about the said contraband which clearly reveals his knowledge and animus as discussed in the case of Union of India v. Nawaz Khan reported in (2021) 10 SCC 100 (3 Judges’ Bench), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has elaborately discussed the test which the High Court should adopt while granting bail, “reasonable grounds to believe”, “conscious possession” of contraband and principles for ascertaining the same have been summarized. Merely the contraband was not in conscious possession of present applicant does not absolve him of the level of scrutiny required under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act. The term “possession” could mean “physical possession” with animus; custody over the prohibited substances with animus; exercise of dominion and control as a result of concealment; or personal knowledge as to the existence of the contraband and the intention based on such knowledge. Herein, applicant was supplying the contraband Ganja and he was in touch with the co-accused. Hence, another raid may be R/CR.MA/11698/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026 coincidence but it cannot be termed as sameness of offence. In another offence, present applicant is released on bail is not a ground to release the applicant on bail in the present offence also considering the role attributed to the present applicant. Once present applicant continuously indulges in such illegal drug trafficking activity and misused his liberty, he cannot claim liberty as an absolutism as of right at the cost of larger public interest. [6.3] Even in offence under IPC also, to use the discretion in favor of an accused to release him on bail, triple test is required to be satisfied considering the flight risk, tampering with evidence and possibility to stand to trial. Hence, possibility that applicant may flee from justice cannot be ruled out. Herein, thought the applicant is not found in conscious possession of the contraband but he was actively involved in the offence in collusion with his real sister who is caught red- handed with conscious possession of prohibited contraband that too in commercial quantity and therefore, if the accused abets an offence, then in aid of section 29(2) of the NDPS Act, clubbing of the said contraband is permissible though obviously it is a subject of trial but this Court is of prima facie considered view that present is a case of commercial quantity and hence, rigors of section 37 of the NDPS Act would be applicable, as the applicant facing charge under Section 29 of the NDPS Act, which reads as under. “29. Punishment for abetment and criminal conspiracy. “29. Punishment for abetment and criminal conspiracy. (1) Whoever abets, or is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit, an offence punishable under this Chapter, shall, whether such offence be or be not committed in consequence of such abetment or in pursuance of such criminal conspiracy, and notwithstanding anything contained in section 116 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), be punishable with the punishment provided for the offence. (2) A person abets, or is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit, an offence, within the meaning of this section, who, in India, abets or is a party to the criminal conspiracy to the commission of any act in a place without and beyond India which-- R/CR.MA/11698/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026 (a) would constitute an offence if committed within India; or (b) under the laws of such place, is an offence relating to narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances having all the legal conditions required to constitute it such an offence the same as or analogous to the legal conditions required to constitute it an offence punishable under this Chapter, if committed within India.” [7.0] A Liberal approach in the matter of bail under the NDPS Act is uncalled for. Section 37 of the NDPS Act starts with a non- obstante clause and therefore, the provisions of Section 437/439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would not be applicable with regard to a person accused of an offence punishable under Section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity of contraband. The words "reasonable grounds" also appear in clause (i) of Section 437 of Cr.P.C. but the authority given to a High Court or a Court of Session under clause (a) of Section 439 permitting release on bail of any person accused of an offence would be curtailed in view of the stringent provision of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act. [7.1] The limitations prescribed under the NDPS Act on granting of bail are in addition to the limitations under Cr.P.C. or any other law for the time being in force. It is further contended that while considering an application for bail with reference to Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the Court is not called upon to record a finding of not guilty. With reference to the phrase "reasonable grounds for believing". [7.2] Moreover, other aspect to be borne in mind is that the liberty of a citizen has got to be balanced with the interest of the society. In cases where narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances are involved, the accused would indulge in activities which are lethal to the society. Therefore, it would certainly be in the interest of the society to keep such persons behind bars during the pendency of the proceedings R/CR.MA/11698/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026 before the court that the organized activities of the underworld and the clandestine smuggling of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances into this country and illegal trafficking in such drugs and substances have led to drug addiction among a sizeable section of the public, particularly the adolescents and students of both sexes and the menace has assumed serious and alarming proportions in the recent years. [7.3] The seriousness of cases under the NDPS Act have to be viewed like this that in a murder case, the accused commits murder of one or two persons, while those persons who are dealing in narcotic drugs are instrumental in causing death or in inflicting death-blow to a number of innocent young victims, who are vulnerable: it causes deleterious effects and deadly impact on the society,that the organised activities of the underworld and the clandestine smuggling of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances into this country and illegal trafficking in such drugs and substances have led to drug addiction among a sizeable section of the public, particularly the adolescents and students of both sexes and the menace has assumed serious and alarming proportions in the recent years. Therefore, in order to effectively control and eradicate this proliferating and booming devastating menace, causing deleterious effects and deadly impact on the society as a whole, the Parliament in its wisdom, has made effective provisions by introducing this Special provisions under the Act. [7.4] The Court while considering the application for bail with reference to Section 37 of the Act is not called upon to record a finding of not guilty. It is for the limited purpose essentially confined to the question of releasing the accused on bail that the Court is R/CR.MA/11698/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026 called upon to see if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and records its satisfaction about the existence of such grounds. But the Court has not to consider the matter as if it is pronouncing a judgment of acquittal and recording a finding of not guilty. in the case of Babua v. State of Orissa, Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to held that: "3. In view of Section 37(1)(b) of the Act unless there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail alone will entitle him to a bail. In the present case, the petitioner attempted to secure bail on various grounds but failed. But those reasons would be insignificant if we bear in mind the scope of Section 37(1)(b) of the Act. At this stage of the case all that could be seen is whether the statements made on behalf of the prosecution witnesses, if believable, would result in conviction of the petitioner or not. At this juncture, we cannot say that the accused is not guilty of the offence if the allegations made in the charge are established. Nor can we say that the evidence having not been completely adduced before the Court that there are no grounds to hold that he is not guilty of such offence. The other aspect to be borne in mind is that the liberty of a citizen has got to be balanced with the interest of the society. In cases where narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances are involved, the accused would indulge in activities which are lethal to the society. Therefore, it would certainly be in the interest of the society to keep such persons behind bars during the pendency of the proceedings before the court, and the validity of Section 37(1)(b) having been upheld, we cannot take any other view." [7.5] Considering the provisions of Section 37, limitation of grant of bail under Section 37(b)(i) of the NDPS Act where there are reasonable ground for pleading that the applicant is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. [7.6] Considering the aforesaid provisions, as the applicant is having past antecedent of similar nature of offence under the NDPS Act and considering the rigors of Section 37 (b)(ii) of the Act, possibility cannot be ruled out to indulge again in such type of serious offence if he is released on bail. [8.0] Further, in the present case, considering the rigors of section 37 of the NDPS Act and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court R/CR.MA/11698/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026 in the case of Bhawani Singh vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1991, Mayur Jamanbhai Ajani Vs. State of Gujarat, [SLP (Cri.) No.302/2025], as well as in the case of Lalrintluanga Sailo and Another (Supra), the applicant is not entitled to any relief from this Court. Further, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Kerala Vs. Rajesh, Criminal Appeal No.154- 157 of 2020, as the recovered contraband Ganja is of commercial quantity, rigors of Section 37 of the Act would be applicable. [8.1] It is apt to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu & anr, reported in 2012 (9) SCC 446 wherein, it has been held that the concept of liberty is not in the realm of absolutism but is restricted. [8.2] Further, in the case of CBI vs. V. Vijay Sai Reddy reported in (2013)7 SCC 452, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in paragraph 34 as under: “34. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the Legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the Court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.” [9.0] In view of the above, there being no merits in the present application, same is hereby dismissed. However, learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial. It is made clear that the observations made in the present order are tentative in nature and the learned trial Court shall decide the case of the applicant on its own merits without being influenced by the observations made in the present order. R/CR.MA/11698/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026 [10.0] Learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as early as possible since the applicant is an under-trial prisoner. If the co-accused are absconding then the learned trial Court shall separate the trial of such co-accused and the applicant shall also cooperate the learned trial Court in early disposal of the trial. If the applicant fails to engage an Advocate, the trial Court shall appoint an advocate for the accused through District Legal Services Authority / office of Chief Legal Aid Defence Counsel. [11.0] It is made clear that the observations made in the present order are tentative in nature and the learned trial Court shall decide the case of the applicant independently on its own merits without being influenced by the observations made in the present order. Rule is discharged. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.) Ajay Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: AJAY CHANDRAN MENON(HC00939), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 30/07/2026 14:30:17