Bombay High Court
Bhupendra Khandelwal vs State Of Maharashtra on 11 November, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:48107 13-BA-3671-2025.DOC
Shivgan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3671 OF 2025
Bhupendra Khandelwal ...Applicant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra ...Respondent
Ms. Kinjal Khandelwal, for the Applicant.
Ms. Anamika Malhotra, APP for the State-Respondent.
Mr. Nilesh Dhumal, API attached to Anti-Narcotics Cell, Navi
Mumbai, present.
CORAM Dr. Neela Gokhale, J.
DATED: 11th NOVEMBER 2025
PC:-
1. The Applicant seeks his release on bail in connection
with FIR No.251 of 2024 dated 12 th June 2024 registered with
the APMC Police Station, Navi Mumbai 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).
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that:-
Page 1 of 7
th
11 November 2025
::: Uploaded on - 12/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 12/11/2025 20:41:02 :::
13-BA-3671-2025.DOC
2.1 On a secret information received by the Police on 12 th
June 2024, that two persons, namely, Jitendra Gupta, Accused
No.1 and Accused No.2 (the Applicant herein), were to arrive
near Nine Stone Hotel, Kopari signal, Sector 19 D, APMC,
Vashi, Navi Mumbai to sell the contraband, a trap was laid
and both the accused were apprehended. After complying
with the provisions of the NDPS Act, the Applicant and the co-
accused were searched; 71.50 gms and 60 gms of contraband
were recovered from the co-accused and the Applicant
respectively. Thus, an FIR was registered and the Applicant
and the co-accused were arrested.
3. The Applicant made successive applications seeking bail
before the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Belapur, Navi Mumbai,
however, by orders dated 28th February 2025 and 19th August
2025, the same came to be rejected. Hence, the Applicant is
before this Court for the reliefs as prayed.
Page 2 of 7
th
11 November 2025
::: Uploaded on - 12/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 12/11/2025 20:41:02 :::
13-BA-3671-2025.DOC
4. Admittedly, the co-accused (Accused No.1) was granted
default bail since the charge-sheet was not filed within the
stipulated time.
5. Ms. Kinjal Khandelwal, learned counsel appearing for
the Applicant, contends that the contraband alleged to have
been recovered from the Applicant weighed 60 gms with its
plastic pouch and if the weight of plastic pouch is excluded,
the contraband so recovered would be of non-commercial
quantity. She further submits that taking into account that the
Applicant does not have any criminal antecedents against him
and he has already suffered incarceration of 1 year and 5
months, the Applicant be released on bail.
6. On the other hand, Ms. Anamika Malhotra, learned APP
representing the State in the matter, submits that 60 gms of
the contraband is of commercial quantity. The C.A. Report is
also received and the substance recovered from the Applicant
is tested positive for the said contraband. She submits that all
the compliances under the NDPS Act have been made by the
Page 3 of 7
th
11 November 2025
::: Uploaded on - 12/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 12/11/2025 20:41:02 :::
13-BA-3671-2025.DOC
Police officials. She thus, prays that the Bail Application be
rejected.
7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties and perused the record with their assistance.
8. Ms. Khandelwal, learned counsel appearing for the
Applicant, has placed on record the judgment and order of the
Supreme Court dated 22nd August 2025 in the matter of
Abuzar Shakil Khan Vs. State of Maharashtra 1. The facts of
that case are identical to the present case. The commercial
quantity recovered from the Applicant in that matter was also
60 gms of Mephedrone. The commercial quantity is 50 gms. If
the weight of the packing is excluded, the contraband so
recovered may be of intermediate quantity, hence, the bail
was granted to the Accused. In a series of judgments, the
Supreme Court has observed that long incarceration militates
against the precious fundamental right guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India and as such, conditional
1 SLP (Cri) No. 7284 of 2025
Page 4 of 7
th
11 November 2025
::: Uploaded on - 12/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 12/11/2025 20:41:02 :::
13-BA-3671-2025.DOC
liberty overriding the statutory embargo created under
Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 may, in such circumstances,
be considered.
9. Therefore, taking into account that the Applicant has no
criminal antecedents and he has already suffered
incarceration for 1 year and 5 months, I am of the view that
he is entitled to be released on bail more particularly, when
there is no likelihood of the trial being concluded in the near
future. Hence, I pass the following order:
ORDER
i) The Applicant be enlarged on bail, on
executing PR Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/ with
one or two local sureties in the like amount;
ii) The Applicant shall attend the Police Station
concerned once in a month on the first Monday of
every month between 11:00 a.m. to 02:00 p.m., till
the charges are framed;
th
11 November 2025
13-BA-3671-2025.DOC
iii) The Applicant shall attend the Trial Court
concerned on each and every date unless exempted
by the orders of the Trial Court concerned;
iv) If the Applicant has not deposited his
passport, the Applicant shall deposit the same with
the Police Station concerned, if any;
v) The Applicant shall not leave India, without
the permission of the Trial Court;
vi) The Applicant shall not tamper or attempt to
influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or
any person concerned with the case;
vii) The Applicant shall inform his latest place of
residence and mobile number immediately after
being released and / or change of residence or
mobile details, if any, from time to time to the Court
th
11 November 2025
13-BA-3671-2025.DOC
seized of the matter and to the Investigating Officer
of the concerned Police Station;
viii) The Applicant to co-operate with the conduct
of the trial;
ix) Any infraction of the aforesaid conditions
shall entail cancellation of bail.
10. Application is allowed in the above terms and is
accordingly disposed of.
11. It is made clear that the observations made herein are
prima facie and are confined to this Application and the
learned Trial Judge to decide the case on its own merits,
uninfluenced by the observations made herein.
(Dr. Neela Gokhale, J)
Digitally
signed by
SHAMBHAVI
SHAMBHAVI NILESH
NILESH SHIVGAN
SHIVGAN Date:
2025.11.12
11:14:55
+0530
th
11 November 2025
