Chintan Rajubhai Panseriya vs The State Of Maharashtra
2025 Latest Caselaw 7454 Bom

Bombay High Court

Chintan Rajubhai Panseriya vs The State Of Maharashtra on 13 November, 2025

2025:BHC-AS:48680                                                            15-BA-1392-2025.DOC




                    Shivgan



                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                   BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1392 OF 2025

                    Chintan Rajubhai Panseriya                               ...Applicant
                         Versus
                    The State Of Maharashtra                                 ...Respondent

                    Mr. Rizwan Merchant,with Faisal F. Shaikh, for the Applicant.
                    Ms. Anamika Malhotra,with Poonam P. Bhosale, APP for the
                          State-Respondent.


                          CORAM                            Dr. Neela Gokhale, J.
                          RESERVED ON:                     11th November 2025
                          PRONOUNCED ON:                   13th November 2025
                    JUDGMENT:

-

1. The Applicant seeks his release on bail in connection

with FIR No.25 of 2022 dated 29th March 2022 registered

with the Anti Narcotic Cell (ANC), Worli Unit, Mumbai for the

offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 22(c), 25, 27-A and

29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act,

1985 ('NDPS Act' for short).

2. The Applicant was arrested on 20th December, 2023. The

Bail Application is preferred primarily on the ground of long

th 13 November 2025

15-BA-1392-2025.DOC

incarceration of the Applicant without a real prospect of the

conclusion of the trial in NDPS Special Case No. 1219 of 2022

arising out of C.R. No. 25 of 2022.

3. The Applicant is in custody for about 2 years. The

Applicant asserts that the matter was listed for framing of

charges on 10th November 2025, however, till date, charges

are not framed. Therefore, the Applicant deserves to be

enlarged on bail.

4. The Applicant has referred to a decision of the Supreme

Court in the matter of a co-accused, who is released on bail on

the ground of long incarceration. Mr. Rizwan Merchant,

learned counsel appearing for the Applicant thus, submits that

on the ground of parity, the Applicant also deserves to be

enlarged on bail.

5. The facts in brief of the present matter are that:-

th 13 November 2025

15-BA-1392-2025.DOC

5.1 Initially an FIR No.25 of 2022 was registered by the

ANC, Worli Unit, Crime Branch, Mumbai on 29 th March 2022

for the offences alleged as above. There are in all 12 accused

persons. In the course of the investigation, it was revealed

that the Accused No.7, one, Mr. Ramendrakumar Dixit was

primarily responsible for manufacturing the contraband in a

factory of a firm called Infinity Research and Development.

The firm was owned by the Applicant and was located at

Ankleshwar, Gujarat. The Applicant was the licensee of the

said firm, the same being issued in his name by the

Directorate of Industrial Safety and Health of the State of

Gujarat. The license was valid for the period from 1 st June

2021 up to 31st December 2025.

6. On completion of investigation, the final report under

Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was filed

before the Sessions Court, Mumbai as Special Case No.1219 of

2022. When the Ankleshwar Police visited the factory

premises on 16th August 2022, a large quantity of contraband

th 13 November 2025

15-BA-1392-2025.DOC

goods was seized from the premises. Accordingly, the

Applicant and the Co-accused were arrested on various dates.

There was an issue raised by the Applicant before the Gujarat

High Court in respect of a challenge to the application seeking

discharge from the case rejected by the Additional Sessions

Judge, Ankleshwar. Essentially, the Applicant had sought

revision of the order rejecting his discharge on the ground of

non-maintainability of 2 FIRs pertaining to the same offence.

The Gujarat High Court by its order dated 15 th July 2024 held

that the second FIR at Ankleshwar Police Station, pertaining

to the same incident merged with the FIR registered at ANC,

Worli Unit, Crime Branch, Mumbai. The Revision Application

was rejected by the Gujarat High Court.

7. The Applicant then made an application before the

Special Judge (NDPS), Greater Mumbai, seeking bail.

However, by an order dated 16th December 2024, the Special

Judge rejected the said application. Hence, the Applicant is

before this Court for the reliefs as prayed.

th 13 November 2025

15-BA-1392-2025.DOC

8. Mr. Merchant, in defense of the Applicant, submits that

the Applicant was not at all concerned nor connected with the

offence. He submits that although license of the firm was

issued in the name of the Applicant as also the premises of the

firm belonged to the Applicant, the Applicant was not in

charge of the day-to-day affairs of the manufacturing activity

of the firm, and he visited the firm premises only once in 10

days. Hence, according to Mr. Merchant, the Applicant was

absolutely oblivious to the details of the manufacturing

activity in the factory. Mr. Merchant draws my attention to the

statements of various witnesses including the statement of the

employees of the firm namely, Deepak Kundan Gupta,

Sonukumar Shyamsundar Prajapati, Raji Ahmad Faryad

Ahmad Khan, Abhishek Shrikrishna Murari Mishra, Kishan

Himatbhai Bhadiyadara, Jayant Dineshbhai Hirpara, etc., who

stated that the Applicant visited the firm premises once in ten

days.

th 13 November 2025

15-BA-1392-2025.DOC

9. Mr. Merchant also relied upon an order dated 17 th May

2024 passed by this Court in the Bail Application of the

Accused Nos. 3 and 4. Accused No.4 was enlarged on bail by

this Court while the Bail Application of the Accused No.3 was

rejected. Thereafter, the Supreme Court by its order dated 15 th

October 2024 released the Accused No.3 on bail taking into

consideration the period of incarceration of the said Accused.

Mr. Merchant thus, claims parity for the Applicant with the

Accused Nos.3 and 4. He thus, prays that the Applicant be

released on bail.

10. Per contra, Ms. Anamika Malhotra and Ms. Poonam P.

Bhosale, learned APPs representing the State, stoutly

contested the Bail Application. Ms. Malhotra, stressed on the

license issued in the name of the Applicant and the premises

from which the contraband was seized to be in the name of

the Applicant. She brought to my attention the provisions of

Section 25 of the NDPS Act, which bring within its ambit the

owner or occupier of a premises used for commission of the

th 13 November 2025

15-BA-1392-2025.DOC

offence under the Act. She submits that although nothing was

recovered from the Applicant, the Applicant was found to be

in the premises with Co-accused No.7 at the time of the search

of the premises. She further submits that a total of 2428

kilograms and 959 grams of Mephedrone ('MD') was seized

from all the accused, the value of which is approximately

Rs.4857.91 Crores. In fact, the Mumbai Crime Branch seized

1723 kilograms and 250 grams of MD from the premises at

the time when the Applicant was present in the factory.

Similarly, on the very next date, the Ankleshwar Police seized

82 kilograms 387 grams of MD in solid form and 1300 liters

of liquid MD from the same premises. On a query made by the

Court to the APP, as to how the Investigating Agency

concluded that the Applicant was in the know of the

manufacturing activity of MD in the factory, Ms. Malhotra,

learned APP tendered the bank statement of the Infinity

Research and Development Firm. It is her submission that the

statement of account of the firm revealed that there was no

transaction pertaining to any legitimate debit or credit from

th 13 November 2025

15-BA-1392-2025.DOC

any purchaser or supplier appearing in the bank statement.

According to her, there was no other drug or substance

manufactured in the factory, save and except the manufacture

of MD. Thus, the Applicant was well aware of MD being

manufactured in the factory instead of drugs, for which the

license was issued in the name of the Applicant. The learned

APPs thus vehemently resist the Bail Application.

11. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective

parties and perused the record with their assistance.

12. The facts of the case reveal that the Applicant was the

owner of the premises, from which the huge quantity of

contraband was seized. The license is also issued in the name

of the Applicant for the purpose of manufacturing drugs and

other substances. In these circumstances, ingredients of

Section 25 of the NDPS Act are prima facie met. The question

is as to whether a prima facie opinion can be formed

regarding the knowledge of the Applicant. Admittedly, the

statements of witnesses recorded by the Police indicate that it

th 13 November 2025

15-BA-1392-2025.DOC

was Mr. Dixit i.e., Accused No.7 and other Co-accused, who

were primarily concerned with the day-to-day running of the

factory. Statements of all the employees are consistent that

said Dixit and others came to the factory every day and issued

specific directions and instructions regarding the job work and

the method of manufacturing, packing and dispatching the

finished products. In so far as the role attributed to the

Applicant is concerned, the witnesses have stated that the

Applicant used to visit the factory premises once in 10 days.

However, he used to stay for 2 hours and remain in his office.

13. Be that as it may, the statement of bank accounts reveal

transactions only relating to purchase of some machinery.

Other transactions show deposits by the Applicant and other

accused in the account of the firm. What is significantly

absent is any credits from any purchaser of drugs, chemicals,

dyes, which the Applicant was legitimately permitted to

manufacture in the factory, pursuant to the license issued in

the name of the Applicant. The Applicant admittedly visited

th 13 November 2025

15-BA-1392-2025.DOC

the factory every 10 days. Thus, the fact of knowledge by the

Applicant cannot be ruled out at this stage and it is only

during the trial that the same can be determined. Prima facie

there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the Applicant

is not guilty of the offence.

14. The quantity of the substance seized is considerably

large enough to raise serious concern. Section 37 of the NDPS

Act, 1985 which begins with non obstante clause contains an

interdict against releasing a person accused of committing

offences punishable under Section 19 or Section 24 or Section

27-A and also for offences involving commercial quantity,

unless the public prosecutor has been given an opportunity to

oppose the application for such release and where the public

prosecutor opposes the application, the Court is satisfied that

there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty

of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence

while on bail.

th 13 November 2025

15-BA-1392-2025.DOC

15. Sub section (2) of Section 37 further emphasizes that

the limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of

sub section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any other law for the

time being in force, on granting of bail.

16. Parliament has incorporated such restrictions in the

matter of grant of bail to the person accused of grave offences

under NDPS Act, 1985 keeping in view the damaging effect

and devastating impact such offences have on society.

Satisfaction of the Court that the accused will not indulge in

identical offence becomes necessary as there is an

apprehension that the person released on bail may again

indulge in the nefarious activity of trafficking in drugs.

Parliament has thus used the expression, "reasonable ground"

which implies something more than prima facie ground. In

the case of State of Kerala vs. Rajesh and Others1 the Supreme

Court expounded the connotation of term, "reasonable

1 (2020) 12 SCC 122

th 13 November 2025

15-BA-1392-2025.DOC

grounds' in the context of restrictions contained in section 37

of the NDPS Act,1985, as under:-

"The expression "reasonable grounds" means something more than prima facie grounds. It contemplates substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. The reasonable belief contemplated in the provision requires existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. In the case on hand, the High Court seems to have completely overlooked the underlying object of Section 37 that in addition to the limitations provided under the CrPC, or any other law for the time being in force, regulating the grant of bail, its liberal approach in the matter of bail under the NDPS Act is indeed uncalled for."

17. By a catena of judgments, the legal position is fairly

crystallized that the Court has no jurisdiction to grant bail to

an accused whose case falls within the ambit of section 37(1)

of the NDPS Act, 1985 without recording a finding that the

twin test envisaged by sub clause (b) of sub section (1) of

Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985, adverted to above, stands

satisfied.

18. In the case at hand, as noted above, the Applicant is

seeking bail primarily on the ground of long incarceration

th 13 November 2025

15-BA-1392-2025.DOC

albeit Mr. Merchant has placed reliance on the statements of

several witnesses to demonstrate the Applicant's nescience.

Even otherwise, the allegations and material pressed into

service against the Applicant are such that the interdict

contained in section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 is clearly

attracted.

19. Undoubtedly, there is a definite legislative purpose in

providing additional restrictions in the matter of grant of bail,

having regard to the gravity of the offences and the necessity

to arrest the menace of drug trafficking. The restrictions in the

matter of grant of bail under NDPS Act, 1985 and other

enactments like MCOCA and UAPA etc., are based on the

premise that the trial in such matters ought to be concluded

expeditiously and that premise has been held to constitute a

justification for such stringent provisions in the matter of

grant of bail.

20. As against this interest of society, long incarceration of

an accused, without a real prospect of conclusion of trial

th 13 November 2025

15-BA-1392-2025.DOC

within a reasonable period, gives rise to a competing interest

of the accused an account of unjustified deprivation of

personal liberty for an unreasonably long period as an under

trial prisoner.

21. It is in the context of these competing interests; it has

been held that the deprivation of right to speedy trial infringes

the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article

21 of the Constitution of India. The statutory restrictions in

the matter of grant of bail melt down in the face of

unreasonably long period of incarceration. However, Ms.

Malhotra has tendered the daily status of the Special Case

No.1219 of 2022 pending before the Additional Sessions

Court. The roznama indicates that the respective accused have

made several and successive applications, seeking bail,

permission to travel abroad, modification of travel dates, so

on and so forth. The Trial Court has been dealing with and

adjudicating the said applications and crucial time in

conducting the trial is lost. Hence, the prosecution cannot be

th 13 November 2025

15-BA-1392-2025.DOC

found guilty of delaying the trial. Much stress was placed by

Mr. Merchant on the order dated 15th October 2024 passed by

the Supreme Court, releasing Accused No.3-Reshma on bail

on the ground of long incarceration. However, the role

attributed to Reshma demonstrates that no contraband was

found with Reshma and she was roped in on the allegation of

certain financial transactions between herself and her brother,

Riyaz, Accused No.4. Prima facie, there was no other material

apart from financial transactions between Reshma and Riyaz

to show her complicity in the offence. Thus, the case of

Reshma stands on a different footing than that of the

Applicant. This Applicant thus, cannot avail the benefit of the

Apex Court' order passed in the case of Reshma and claim

relief on the ground of long incarceration.

22. Another important aspect in the matter is that the

Gujarat High Court has refused to grant relief to the Applicant

in the Revision Application filed by him, challenging rejection

by the Sessions Court of Ankleshwar, of his Discharge

th 13 November 2025

15-BA-1392-2025.DOC

Application. Consequently, the Gujarat High Court has found a

prima facie case against the Applicant establishing the

embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

23. Considering the aforesaid discussion, in my opinion, the

narrow parameters of bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act

are not satisfied. It is not safe to conclude that there are

reasonable grounds to believe that the Applicant is not guilty

of the offence alleged against him. The length of period of his

custody in so far as this Applicant is concerned, by itself, is not

a consideration that can be treated as a persuasive ground to

grant relief to the Applicant.

24. In view of the aforesaid, the Bail Application is rejected.

In view of the fact that this Applicant has suffered

incarceration for almost 2 years, the Trial Court is requested

to expedite the trial in the said case.

(Dr. Neela Gokhale, J)

SHAMBHAVI NILESH SHIVGAN

th 19:21:17 +0530 13 November 2025