28-ba-1124-26.doc Urmila Ingale IN IN THE THE HIGH HIGH COURT COURT OF OF JUDICATURE JUDICATURE AT AT BOMBAY BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1124 OF 2026 Abhishek Vilas Balkawade .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent ....................  Mr.Gagandeep Singh a/w Mr. Raviraj Dhanawade, Ms.Sphurti G. Singh, Mr. Abhijeet Phulsundar, Mr. Dattatray Yadav i/b Mr. Manjeet Lotankar, Advocates for Applicant.  Ms. Shilpa G. Talhar, APP for Respondent-State.  API-Mr. Vishal Patil, ANC Nashik City present. ................... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : AUGUST 18, 2026 P.C. : 1. Heard Mr. Singh, learned Advocate for Applicant and Ms. Talhar, learned APP for Respondent. 2. By this Bail Application, Applicant - accused is seeking enlargement on bail in Crime No. 460 of 2023 registered with Nashik Road Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 22(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”, for short). Date of the incident is 07/10/2023. 3. A case of mistaken identity is what has been propounded by the prosecution in the present case qua the Applicant before the Court. The case of the prosecution stems from two statements given by the 1 of 6 URMILA PRAMOD INGALE Digitally signed by URMILA PRAMOD INGALE Date: 2026.08.19 10:33:55 +0530 28-ba-1124-26.doc first informant who are the Jadhav Brothers being the owners of a godown in Nashik. The said godown in question was taken on leave and licence basis by the accused no.1-Shivaji Ambadas Shinde. Insofar as the present Applicant called Abhishek Vilas Balkawade is concerned, his name does not figure anywhere in the prosecution case, save and except when Shivaji Ambadas Shinde’s statement is recorded by the prosecution, copy of which is appended at page 298 by the prosecution. Prima facie, a reading of the said statement shows that accused no.1 had contacted Vilas Jadhav one of the owners of the said godown for seeking to take the said godown on leave and licence basis on the pretext that one of his friends had a farm and he wanted to manufacture certain ointments and medicines. The statement of the other Jadhav Brother namely Dattu Jadhav has also been recorded by the prosecution on 13/10/2023, copy of which is appended at page 141. His statement when read, does not name the Applicant. However, he has named two specific persons out of the total 9 accused persons, one person he named is accused no. 1 – Shivaji Ambadas Shinde. The second person that he has named is a person called Sanjay Kale. The reference to Sanjay Kale is very specific inasmuch as Dattu Jadhav confirms that the cheques towards the leave and licence fee received by them were issued by Sanjay Kale. Complainant’s case is that there was something suspicious that was being manufactured in the godown by the accused persons and the reference is to Shivaji 2 of 6 28-ba-1124-26.doc Shinde and his group of friends who were involved whereafter the Jadhav Brothers approached the Police Station. The Police recorded their statement and raided the godown and recovered contraband namely MD. 4. Learned Advocate for the Applicant would submit that at that time, Abhishek Vilas Balkawade- the Applicant who is an engineer by profession, was incidentally already apprehended and was behind bars in another NDPS case. He would submit that the twin statements relied upon by the prosecution are the only material to involve and indict the Applicant. The case of mistaken identity is also pleaded by him. He would submit that in the present offence, his date of arrest has been shown as 05/12/2023 and he is being behind bars for 33 months. That apart, he would submit that the case of the prosecution is that the person who issued the cheques to the Jadhav Brothers namely Sanjay Kale was none other than the present Applicant, but there is no material whatsoever placed on record by the prosecution to prove the same, neither there is any investigation directed in that direction. He would submit that complicity and involvement of the Applicant is purely based on circumstantial evidence which is in the form of the statement given by Shri Jadhav appended at page 141 read with the statement of accused no.1 appended at page 298. He would vehemently submit that the statement which is appended at page 298 does not show the role attributed to the Applicant. Rather he would 3 of 6 28-ba-1124-26.doc submit that the name of the Applicant though mentioned therein, at the said time, the Applicant was never present at all. That apart, learned advocate would also persuade the Court to consider parity in favour of the Applicant on the ground that accused nos. 4, 7, 8 and 9 have all been released on bail either by this Court or by the trial Court. Three of the accused persons have been released on bail by order dated 05/08/2024, copies of which are placed before me. Prima facie, reading the said order, clearly makes out a case, rather a better case for the Applicant before me. No recovery of contraband has been effected on the Applicant, identity of the Applicant is not established by the prosecution, prima facie a discrepancy in the prosecution case to identify the Applicant and non-compliance of statutory safeguards under Sections 50 and 52 of NDPS Act are seen. Hence, insofar as the precise role attributed to the Applicant is concerned, in view of the aforesaid observations and findings, since the same has not been clearly identified, the Applicant deserves parity and deserves to be enlarged on bail. Prolonged incarceration is also the another reason as to why I am impelled to pass this order as the trial will take a humongous amount of time to be concluded. Hence, the Applicant is released on bail on the following terms and conditions. 5. In view of the above the following order is passed:- (i) Applicant is directed to be immediately released from 4 of 6 28-ba-1124-26.doc prison in connection with Crime No. 460 of 2023; (ii) Applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount; (iii) Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer at Nashik Road Police Station, once every month on the first Sunday of the month between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.; (iv) Applicant shall co-operate with the conduct of trial and attend the Trial Court on all dates, unless specifically exempted and will not take any unnecessary adjournments, if he does so it will entitle the prosecution to apply for revocation of this order; (v) Applicant shall not leave the State of Maharashtra without prior permission of the Trial Court; (vi) Applicant shall not influence with any of the witnesses or tamper with the evidence in any manner; (vii) Applicant shall keep the Investigating Officer informed of his current address and mobile contact number and / or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from time to time, as applicable; and (viii) Any infraction of the conditions shall entail cancellation of bail granted to the Applicant. 5 of 6 28-ba-1124-26.doc 6. Needless to state that the above observations will not come in the way of trial as they are prima facie in nature based on the submissions made and the material placed before this Court. 7. Bail Application is allowed and disposed of in the above terms. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] 6 of 6