Laxman Balu Shinde vs The State Of Maharashtra
2026 Latest Caselaw 3428 Bom

Bombay High Court

Laxman Balu Shinde vs The State Of Maharashtra on 6 April, 2026

     2026:BHC-AS:16568

VASANT
ANANDRAO
IDHOL

Digitally signed by   vai                                                              ba1666.2025.odt
VASANT
ANANDRAO
IDHOL                                                        1
Date: 2026.04.07
19:58:30 +0530


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                            CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                                         Criminal Bail Application No. 1666 of 2025


                      Laxman Balu Shinde                                            .. Applicant
                      versus
                      State of Maharashtra                                          .. Respondent

Mr. Anil G. Lalla with Mr.Yash Pulekar and Mr.Rushil Alag for the Applicant.

Mr. H.J. Dedhia, APP for the Respondent - State.

Mr.Mahesh Mule, SPP with Ms.Nidhi Narwekar for the Respondent.

Mr.Atmaji Sawant, Sr.PI, DCB CID Unit-7 is present in Court.

CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J RESERVED ON : 24TH MARCH, 2026 PRONOUNCED ON : 6TH APRIL, 2026 P.C. :

1. The applicant is seeking bail in connection with Crime

No. 12 of 2024 registered with ANC Ghatkopar Unit, Mumbai for the

vai ba1666.2025.odt

offences punishable under Sections 8(C), 22(C) and 29 of N.D.P.S.

Act, 1985.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 15.02.2024 P.I.

Sawant received specific intelligence that Parveen Banu would be

receiving significant quantity of MD for seal in Mumbai. A trap was

led. A lady was found in suspicious circumstances and hence,

apprehended. Before apprehending her, she attempted to flee. Since,

the circumstances were suspicious in nature two panch witnesses

were summoned. The said lady i.e. accused No.1 was searched after

compliance of Section 50 of the Act. During the personal search of

accused No.1, 641 gm of mephedrone (MD) was reccovered from

her. On the basis of information received from the said lady, accused

No.2 was arrayed in crime and a recovery of 3 kg of MD is made

from him. During interrogation with him, the names of accused

Nos.3 and 4 were revealed. The police unit of DCB, CID proceeded to

Surat and apprehended accused Nos.3 and 4 and they were brought

to Mumbai. During further investigation it was revealed that accused

vai ba1666.2025.odt

Pravin Shinde is manufacturing MD in a factory at Sangli. The said

factory was raided, wherein 122.500 kg of MD came to be recovered.

Since, the present applicant and other co-accused were found

working in the manufacturing process of MD in the said factory, they

came to be arrested. A further investigation was carried out and

subsequent arrests were also affected. It is the case of the prosecution

that this is a crime committed by a syndicate dealing with Narcotic

drugs. It is further claimed that some of the accused persons are

deported from UAE. It is claimed that the present crime is

voluminous not only in terms of the recovered MD which is more

than 122 kg, but also in terms of the involvement of number of

accused persons not only in different States in India but also from

foreign countries. On conclusion of investigation against the

applicant and the co-accused who are arrested, charge-sheet came to

be filed against them.

3. Present application is filed by the Applicant for bail on the

ground of false implication. It is contended that he is a farmer and

vai ba1666.2025.odt

since, was in need of work, started working along with some of the

co-accused in a grapes farm. It is his submission that, he along with

co-accused was picked up from the grape farm while he was

sleeping. It is claimed that he has no concern or nexus with alleged

manufacture of Narcotic Substance in the factory. According to him,

there is no seizure or recovery of any contraband from him so also he

has not been provided with grounds of arrest.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant

has no criminal history and that in fact he is a farmer by occupation.

According to him, applicant was in search of employment and hence,

accepted a job in grapes farm. It is his submission that the applicant

has no concern with the factory or any alleged manufacturing done

therein. He further submits that the panchanamas prepared by the

Police Officers are not genuine and create doubt with regard to the

same since the search panchanama does not even disclose the time a

departure of the team. It is also claimed that the mobile phone

seized of the applicant has not been sealed. All these circumstances,

vai ba1666.2025.odt

according to him, create serious doubt with regard to the case of the

prosecution sought to be made out against the present applicant.

According to him merely on the basis of the statements of the co-

accused and in absence of any connecting link of the applicant with

the crime in question, he cannot be detained in jail after filing of the

charge-sheet. He also seeks bail on the ground that grounds of arrest

are not furnished to the applicant, in view of judgment of Hon'ble

Supreme Court. On these amongst other submissions, he seeks bail.

He placed reliance on following case laws :-

1. Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India & others 2023 SCC Online SC 1200

2. Mahesh Pandurang Naik vs. The State of Maharashtra & another Writ Petition St. No. 13838/2024

3. Hanuman Choudhary vs. The State of Maharashtra Writ Petition Stamp No. 17788/2024

4. Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and another 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269

vai ba1666.2025.odt

5. Learned APP opposed the application firstly on the ground that

the volume of the recovery of narcotic substance i.e. MD is huge.

According to him, there is prima facie evidence to indicate that all

accused persons are working as narcotic drug cartel and the crime is

spread not only in number of States in Indian but also being operated

from foreign countries. It is his submission that there are 15 persons

arrested till date and out of which 3 persons deported from UAE. He

drew attention of the Court to the provisions of NDPS Act which

according to him, provides for presumption of the commission of

offences. It is his submission that, there is more than sufficient

evidence on record to indicate that the present applicant is part of

the said narcotic drug cartel and that the panchnama on record

clearly shows that the applicant was not only working in the factory,

but also had sufficient/adequate knowledge of the manufacturing

process. Thus, it is his submission that having regard to the nature of

offence it cannot be said that the embargo of Section 37 has no

application to the present case. Insofar as the grounds of arrest and

vai ba1666.2025.odt

information thereof to the applicant is concerned, attention of the

Court is drawn to the memo of arrest, which according to him, in

detail gives information with regard to the grounds of arrest to the

applicant.

6. Prima facie perusal of the record in the form of panchanama

indicates that the applicant along with some of the co-accused was

apprehended in a factory at Sangli. The said panchanama, further

revealed presence of raw material for manufacturing MD and

required equipments for the production of MD. On the face of it, the

evidence on record clearly indicates that the entire set up for

manufacture of contraband was available there. Though the

Applicant claims that he was employed in a grape farm, he was

accosted not from the grape farm but from the said factory. In

presence of panch witnesses, the applicant gave all information with

regard to the manufacturing process of MD and apprised the raiding

team of the same. Thus, it cannot be said that the applicant is not

connected with the factory and the manufacturing process

vai ba1666.2025.odt

undertaken therein. It it was so, he would not have been able to give

details of the same. No doubt, possession of the contraband

constitutes an offence however, at the same time, illicit trafficking of

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances also amounts to offence.

It would be relevant to take note of Section 2(viiia) of the Act which

reads thus :-

2(viiia) 'illicit traffic', in relation to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, means -

(i) xxxx

(ii) xxxx

(iii) engaging in the production, manufacture, possession, sale, purchase, transportation, warehousing concealment, use or consumption, import inter-State, export inter-State, import into India, export from India or transhipment, of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances;

(iv) dealing in any activities in narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances other than those referred to in sub-

clauses (i) to (iii); or

vai ba1666.2025.odt

(v) handling or letting out any premises for the carrying on of any of the activities referred to in sub-clauses (i) to

(iv).

7. In the instant case, there is evidence to hold applicant's

involvement in the aforestated activities. Thus, it can be said that

the applicant was abetting and conspiring in furtherance and in

support of doing the above activities with the co-accused.

8. At this stage, it would be relevant to take note of the facts of

the present case which are peculiar in nature. The investigation

conducted till the date indicates about this being a syndicate activity

carried out by the accused persons. In connection with this crime,

raid conducted on a factory at Sangli led to seizure of 122 kg MD.

The evidence on record on the basis of statement of witnesses so also

electronic record more than sufficiently demonstrates that this is a

case of conspiracy for committing offence under NDPS Act.

9. Insofar as the information of the ground of arrest is concerned,

reliance is sought to be placed on the judgments of the Hon'ble

vai ba1666.2025.odt

Supreme Court in case of Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Harayana, 2025

SCC OnLine SC 269, Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi),

(2024) 8 SCC 254. A reference is also made to the judgment of

Division Bench of this Court in case of Hanuman Choudhary Vs. The

State of Maharashtra in Criminal Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 17755 of

2024, decided on 25.10.2024, wherein it is held that non

communication of grounds of arrest to the accused is violation of

fundamental right and statutory right of the applicant.

10. In this regard however, it is pertinent to note the

judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Karnataka

Versus Sri Darshan Etc., 2025 INSC 979 wherein after considering all

previous judgments on issue it is held as under:

"20.1.7. In the present case, the arrest memos and remand records clearly reflect that the respondents were aware of the reasons for their arrest. They were legally (2024) 7 SCC 576 represented from the outset and applied for bail shortly after arrest, evidencing an immediate and informed understanding of the

vai ba1666.2025.odt

accusations. No material has been placed on record to establish that any prejudice was caused due to the alleged procedural lapse. In the absence of demonstrable prejudice, such as irregularity is, at best, a curable defect and cannot, by itself, warrant release on bail. As reiterated above, the High Court treated it as a determinative factor while overlooking the gravity of the charge under Section 302 IPC and the existence of a prima facie case. Its reliance on Pankaj Bansal and Prabir Purkayastha is misplaced, as those decisions turned on materially different facts and statutory contexts. The approach adopted here is inconsistent with the settled principle that procedural lapses in furnishing grounds of arrest, absent prejudice, do not ipso facto render custody illegal or entitle the accused to bail."

11. After the passing of the order by the Division Bench of

this Court in case of Hanuman Choudhary (supra), the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has held that, unless prejudice is shown, even in case

of lapses in providing of the grounds of arrest would not ipso facto

entitle an accused to get bail.

vai ba1666.2025.odt

12. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that Co-

ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Mimit Ajit Bhuta Versus The

State of Maharashtra through DC CID in Criminal Writ Petition No.

5552 of 2025, decided on 10.03.2026, has granted bail to the

accused therein.

13. A perusal of the judgment in case of Mimit Ajit Bhuta

Versus The State of Maharashtra through DC CID (supra) shows that

the judgment in case of State of Karnataka Versus Sri Darshan Etc.

(supra) was taken into consideration however, it was held that in the

facts and circumstances of the said case, the same does not assist the

case of prosecution. The observations made in the said judgment

more particularly in paragraph No. 16 indicates that in the said case,

the arrest of the petitioners was done without issuing notice under

Section 35(3) of BNSS, though it was warranted. Similarly, in the

said case as observed in paragraph No.26, common grounds of arrest

were furnished to both petitioners and that they could not offer

satisfactory explanation of allegation. Thus, it cannot be said that the

vai ba1666.2025.odt

said judgment came to be passed by distinguishing the judgment of

Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Karnataka Versus Sri

Darshan Etc. (supra), but it was passed considering difference in

facts of both cases. Most importantly the judgment in case of Mimit

Ajit Bhuta Versus The State of Maharashtra through DC CID (supra)

does not pertains to case under NDPS Act, whereas there are strict

provisions for grant of bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act in form

of twin conditions, in case of commercial quantity of the contraband

is seized from accused, which is contrary to the principle of bail is

rule and jail is exception.

14. Section 37 of the Act mandates that before granting bail, the

Court must be satisfied that the accused has not committed the crime

and that he is not likely to commit the crime, if released on bail.

Unless these two contingencies are met, the Court does not get a

right to pass any order of bail. It is not expected from the Court to

go into the evidence on record in the charge-sheet in detail, in order

to find out loopholes in the case of the prosecution in order to grant

vai ba1666.2025.odt

bail. In considered view of this Court, only in case of non-

compliance of mandatory provisions, which go to the root of the

matter and which would in all probabilities lead to negation of the

seizure of the contraband, small here and there infraction of the

procedure, cannot be permitted to become a ground for grant of bail.

15. In view of above discussion, there is no merit in the

application. Application accordingly stands rejected.

( R. M. JOSHI, J.)