27.BA.368.2026.doc HARSHADA H. SAWANT (P.A.) 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.368 OF 2026 Mangesh Madhukar Billare .. Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent ....................  Mr. Ayaz Khan a/w. Ms. Zehra Charania, Ms. Mallika Sharma and Mr. Dilip Mishra, Advocates for Applicant.  Ms. Anuja S. Gotad, APP for Respondent – State.  PSI / Navesh Nimbalkar, Polladpur Police Station, Raigad. ................... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : AUGUST 18, 2026 P.C. : 1. Heard Mr. Khan, learned Advocate for Applicant and Ms. Gotad, learned APP for Respondent. 2. This is an Application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking Bail in connection with C.R. No.80 of 2024 registered with Poladpur Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c) and 29 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’). 3. The Applicant is in incarceration for 1 year, 11 months in offences punishable under the NDPS Act. He was apprehended at a public location by the prosecution Officer in the car which belonged to him on receipt of credible information by the police. However, there is non-compliance of Sections 42(2) of the NDPS Act as averred by 1 of 5 27.BA.368.2026.doc Applicant. 4. At the outset, Mr. Khan has drawn my attention to page No.51, which is the information having been received by the senior superior from the concerned Police Officer receiving the information for initiating the trap. In that information, it is categorically stated that credible information was received from a police Informant by Police Havaldar / 889 – Jitendra Chavan. Copy of the same is appended at page No.51. The First Information Report (for short ‘FIR’) does not specifically refer to receipt of information by Jitendra Chavan, but merely states about the trap which laid by the team for apprehending the Accused persons. Station Diary entry, which is registered and copy of which is shown to the Court, appended at page No.62 refers to the information having been noted down by Krishna Namdev, Head Constable. There is however no reference to the information having been received by the concerned Police Havaldar - Jitendra Chavan, therein. 5. This dichotomy having been noticed, therein, apparently, and prima facie shows dereliction on the part of the prosecution in noting down the name of the person who received the first information and the subsequent authorization required to be sought for the same. This being the strongest ground argued by Mr. Khan, apart from the fact that the seized substance was contraband ‘ganja’ and the 2 of 5 27.BA.368.2026.doc description of the seized contraband in the FIR not being in consonance with the definition of ‘ganja’ as contemplated by the provisions of the Section 2(b)(i) of the NDPS Act. 6. The Applicant has also argued non-compliance and violation of Section 52A of the NDPS Act. Mr. Khan would submit that the substance - contraband recovered from the car was described as blackish-green substance purported to be ‘ganja’, without its specific description at all. He would submit that the CA report prima facie describes the samples as flowering and fruiting tops, leaves, and stalks, however the leaves and stalks would not fall within the purview of the definition of ‘ganja’ as contemplated by the NDPS Act. 7. In that view of the matter, it is the case of Applicant that the weight of the actual ‘ganja’ to the extent of the flowering and fruiting tops, has not been done and if at all it had been done, it would fall below commercial quantity considering the overall weight of the seized material. Page No.91 of the Application further pertains to non- compliance of the provisions of Section 52A of the NDPS Act, whereby the alleged contraband substance has been weighed along with the bag by the prosecution Officers and there is no independent measurement of the alleged contraband substance. 8. In that view of the matter, prima facie non-compliance of Section 42(2) read with 52A of the NDPS Act of the Act has been made 3 of 5 27.BA.368.2026.doc out by the Applicant for grant of bail. The Applicant has argued non- compliance of Rule 13 of the NDPS Rules 2022, in there being a substantial delay of 3 days in forwarding the sample to the CA, so as to not rule out any tampering with it. He would also submit that the sample was received in a paper cloth pouch and not heat-sealed as mandated by the said rule. Considering the total weight of the contraband being 24.435 kg and the incarceration of the Applicant for 1 year 11 months, and the improbability of the trial being completed in the near future, the Applicant has made out a case for grant of bail. 9. Considering the aforesaid, Applicant has made out case for grant of bail subject to following conditions:- (i) Applicant is directed to be immediately released from prison in connection with Crime No. 80 of 2024; (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 concerned Police Station, once every month on the first Monday 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 4 of 5 27.BA.368.2026.doc 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. 10. Bail Application is allowed and disposed of in the above terms. H. H. SAWANT [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] 5 of 5 HARSHADA HANUMANT SAWANT Digitally signed by HARSHADA HANUMANT SAWANT Date: 2026.08.18 15:07:37 +0530