Bombay High Court
Shantaram Baburav Dhoble @ Bapu ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 9 November, 2022
Bench: S. K. Shinde
Digitally
signed by
29-BA-825-2022.odt
SHAMBHAVI
SHAMBHAVI NILESH
NILESH SHIVGAN
SHIVGAN Date:
2022.11.10
15:43:42
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO.825 OF 2022
Shantaram B. Dhoble
@ Bapu Maharaj ... Applicant
Vs
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondents
...
Mr. Mithilesh Mishra i/by Mr. Raju Mate for the
Applicant.
Mr. A.A.Palkar, APP for the Respondent-State.
PSI Sujata Patil, Shirur Police Station, Pune present.
CORAM : SANDEEP K. SHINDE J.
DATE : 9th NOVEMBER, 2022.
P.C. :
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the
learned Prosecutor for the State.
2 Applicant seeks his enlargement on bail in
connection with the Crime No.899 of 2021 registered with
Shirur Police Station, Pune for the offence punishable under
Sections 8(c), 20, 22, of the Narcotic Drugs and
Shivgan 1/6
29-BA-825-2022.odt
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('NDPS Act' for short)
and Sections 2(16), 9, 39, 48(a), 49(b), 51, 52 of the Wildlife
(Protection) Act, 1972. Applicant is a priest of Hanuman
Mandir Math. It is alleged that on a tip off, raid was
conducted in the premises of the Math, wherefrom 10 kgs
of Ganja was recovered. In addition thereto, cannabis plants
found cultivated in the land adjoining to the Math were up-
rooted and recovered of which weight was 31.445 kgs. That
apart two antlers and skin of deer, were found in the temple
math. Applicant was arrested on 19 th November, 2021.
Investigation is over and the charge-sheet has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has taken me
through the charge-sheet to contend that, there is no iota of
evidence, suggesting that, applicant cultivated cannabis
plants. It is submitted that land from which the plants were
uprooted, was not owned by the applicant, but village land
as is evident from the panchanama. It is, therefore,
submitted that prima-facie, there is no evidence indicating
Shivgan 2/6
29-BA-825-2022.odt
that applicant has cultivated cannabis plants. In so far as
the alleged recovery of 10 kgs. of Ganja is concerned, it is
submitted that the it being non commercial quantity, rigors
of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not apply. It is further
submitted that there is absolutely no material to show
exact quantity of weight of Ganja detected from the
cannabis. Learned counsel for the applicant in support of
his contention relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court
in the case of Alakhram 2004 SCC 766. In the said case,
accused was acquitted of the offence for cultivating
prohibited plant for want of evidence of actual cultivation of
such plants by him. Learned counsel would also rely on
orders passed by this Court in Criminal Bail Application
No.2583 of 2019 (Revati Mohite-Dere, J.) and the orders in
Bail Application No.211 of 2019 (Mangesh Patil, J.) a Bench
at Aurangabad.
4 On the other hand, the learned Assistant
Government Pleader would contend that allegations, prima-
Shivgan 3/6
29-BA-825-2022.odt
facie, attract provisions of Section 20(a) of the NDPS Act
and it being punishable with imprisonment, which may
extend to ten years and fine, which may extend to one lakh,
applicant may not be granted bail.
5. I have carefully considered rival submissions and
perused the charge-sheet.
6. Section 8(b) of the NDPS Act, prohibits cultivation
of cannabis plants and under Section 20 of the NDPS Act,
such cultivation of cannabis is made punishable with
imprisonment and fine. However, in the case at hand, there
is no evidence at all which would suggest that cannabis
plants were cultivated by the applicant. That apart, land
from which the plants were up-rooted and collected was,
village land as could be seen from the panchanama itself. In
so far as the alleged recovery of 10 kgs of Ganja is
concerned, same being not commercial quantity, rigors of
provisions of Section 37 of NDPS Act would not apply. It may
Shivgan 4/6
29-BA-825-2022.odt
be stated that though the Chemical Analyser's report
suggests that detection of cannabis, constituents from
extracts of the plants are positive, however, charge-sheet
does not indicate quantity of ganja extracted from such
plants. Above all the charge-sheet, prima-facie, does not
suggest that temple from which ganja was recovered, was
in his exclusive possession of the applicant. To put it
differently, temple premises being accessible to the public
at large, it cannot be said that said premises were in
exclusive possession and control of the applicant.
7. In view of the facts above and for the reasons
stated, case is made out for releasing the applicant on bail.
Thus, following order;
ORDER
(i) The applicant in Crime No.899 of 2021 registered
with Shirur Police Station, Pune shall be released on
executing PR bond for the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one or
more sureties in like sum.
Shivgan 5/6
29-BA-825-2022.odt
(ii) The applicant shall attend the concerned police
station once in a month, I.e, 2nd Monday of every month
between 1 to 2 p.m. till the charge is framed.
(iii) The applicant shall furnish his permanent
residential address and contact number to the Investigating
Officer within seven days from the date of his release on
bail.
(iv) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence
or attempt to influence or contact the complainant,
witnesses or any person concerned with the case
8 The application is accordingly allowed and
disposed of.
9 It is made clear that observations made here-in-
above be construed as expression of opinion for the
purpose of bail only and the same shall not in any way
influence the trial in other proceedings.
(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.)
Shivgan 6/6
