Rahul Rajesh Jadhav vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another
2024 Latest Caselaw 23361 Bom

Bombay High Court

Rahul Rajesh Jadhav vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 8 August, 2024

2024:BHC-AUG:17506
                                                                         928-ba-997-2024.odt
                                                  (1)


                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                  BAIL APPLICATION NO. 997 OF 2024

                                         Rahul Rajesh Jadhav
                                               VERSUS
                               The State Of Maharashtra And Another
                                                   ...
                 Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Kale Pratiksha Chhaburao (through V.C.)
                          APP for Respondents/State : Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar
                                                   ...
                                                   CORAM : S.G. MEHARE, J.

                                                   DATED : AUGUST 08, 2024

                 PER COURT:-

                 1.           Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP

                 for the State.

                 2.           The applicant seeks bail in Crime No.96 of 2024

                 registered with Gangapur Police Station, District Aurangabad for the

                 offence punishable under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and

                 Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('NDPS Act' for short).

                 3.           It has been alleged against the applicant that the

                 applicant was carrying a gunny back containing narcotic drugs i.e.

                 Ganja on his motorbike. Around 28.6 kg Ganja was recovered from

                 him.

                 4.           The learned counsel for the applicant would submit that

                 Section 52A of the NDPS Act has not been complied with. Therefore,

                 the recovery of the so-called Ganja falls under the shadow of doubt.

                 She prayed for bail.
                                                             928-ba-997-2024.odt
                                   (2)


5.          The learned APP would submit that the prosecution may

prove the case otherwise. Therefore, non-compliance of Section 52A

of the NDPS Act would not entitle the applicant for bail.

6.          It is clear from the record that Section 52A of the NDPS

Act has not been complied. Section 52A requires that the so-called

seized contraband should be produced before the Magistrate for

determining the quantity and quality of such contraband. There are

series of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that where Section

52A is not followed, it raises a serious doubt about the truthfulness of

the recovery.

7.          Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Simarnjit Singh V/s State of Punjab" 2023 (3) Crimes 168 reiterated

the same issue on failing to comply with Section 52, the trial may turn

in acquittal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed thus :

      "Hence, the act of PW-7 of drawing samples from all the
      packets at the time of seizure is not in conformity with the
      law laid down by this Court in the case of Mohanlal. This
      creates a serious doubt about the prosecution's case that
      substance recovered was a contraband. Hence the case of
      prosecution is not free from suspicion".


8.          In these circumstances, the quantity may be immaterial.

In view of the consistent view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on

Section 52A, the applicant deserve bail. Hence, the following order :
                                                                  928-ba-997-2024.odt
                                          (3)


                                      ORDER

(i) Bail Application is allowed.

(ii) Applicant, Rahul Rajesh Jadhav, be released on bail on

furnishing P.B. and S.B. of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty

Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like

amount in the above crime, on the conditions that;

(a) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution

witnesses and shall attend the trial on each and every

date.

(S.G. MEHARE, J.)

Mujaheed//