Jamir Kambal Irani vs State Of Maharashtra
2026 Latest Caselaw 1009 Bom

Bombay High Court

Jamir Kambal Irani vs State Of Maharashtra on 29 January, 2026

Author: Madhav J. Jamdar

Bench: Madhav J. Jamdar

2026:BHC-AS:4505                                                           910-ABA-3574-2025.DOC




                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                             ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.3574 OF 2025


                    Jamir Kambal Irani                                          ...Applicant
                          Versus
                    The State of Maharashtra                                    ...Respondent


                    Mr. Anuj Gaikar a/w. Mr. D. R. Shinde and Mr. Siddheshwar N.
                    Biradar, for the Applicant.
                    Ms. G. P. Mulekar, APP, for the Respondent-State.


                                                  CORAM:      MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

                                                  DATED :     29th JANUARY 2026
                    PC:-

1. Heard Mr. Gaikar, learned Counsel appearing for the

Applicant and Ms. Mulekar, learned APP appearing for the

Respondent-State.

2. This application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking pre-arrest bail in

connection with C.R. No.66 of 2024 registered with Khadki Police

Station, Pune, for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) and

20(b)(ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,

1985 ("the NDPS Act").

Page 1 Sonali

910-ABA-3574-2025.DOC

3. The prosecution case is set out in paragraph No.3 of the

Anticipatory Bail Application, which reads as under:

"3) That the case of the prosecution is as under-

i) That, the alleged case of the prosecution is that, on 08.02.2024, somewhere around 17:30 pm, the Respondents received information of sale of narcotic contraband Ganja and accordingly, the Senior Inspector of Police was informed on call about the said information and accordingly, the Senior Inspector along with a female police inspector reached the spot. That, accordingly, two panchas were arranged and explained the procedure.

ii) That, somewhere around 09.10 pm., the Respondents spotted two suspicious women and two suspicious men carrying plastic bags and they apprehended two women accordingly. However, the men were allegedly able to take advantage of the night and ran away. That, the women were enquired about the plastic bags, and they informed the police officials that the said contained ganja.

The said women identified themselves as Mrs. Zainab Irani and Mrs. Mohsina Irani. That, they were allegedly apprised of their right being searched under section 50 of the Act which they waived. That, they were searched and the same led to recovery of 2 kgs and 300 gms of Ganja from Mrs. Zainab Irani and 2 kgs and 600 gms of Ganja were recovered from Mrs. Mohsina Irani.

iii) Further, enquiry was conducted from the accused regarding the men who has fled the spot and the accused informed the respondents that the said people were Mr. Jamir Irani, allegedly the present Applicant and Mr. Javed Irani. "

Page 2 Sonali

910-ABA-3574-2025.DOC

4. Mr. Gaikar, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant

submits that the Applicant is not involved in the crime. He was not

present when the incident in question took place. The quantity

involved is not commercial quantity. He submits that although

there are six antecedents against the Applicant, none of the

antecedent is under the NDPS Act. He therefore, submits that the

pre-arrest bail be granted to the Applicant.

5. Ms. Mulekar, learned APP submits that the Applicant ran

away from the spot of the incident and he is absconding. She

submits that the Applicant and the co-accused are relatives. The

contraband-Ganja which is found is 4 kgs and 900 gms., which is

intermediate quantity. She submits that there are six antecedents

against the Applicant and therefore, the Anticipatory Bail

Application be rejected.

6. Perusal of the record shows that the quantity involved is 4

kgs and 900 gms. Ganja and which is intermediate quantity. The

Applicant and co-accused are close relatives. In fact, the

Applicant's sister is co-accused. There is material on record to show

that the Applicant was present at the scene of the crime and he ran

Page 3 Sonali

910-ABA-3574-2025.DOC

away. The Applicant is absconding. The Supreme Court in the case

of Lavesh vs. State (NCT of Delhi) has stated that the

extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail be not grant to the accused

who are absconding or not available for the investigation. The

offence is under the NDPS Act. In the facts and circumstances, it

cannot be said that twin conditions as imposed by Section 37 of

the NDPS Act are complied with. The Applicant has six

antecedents. Although it is correct that the antecedents are not

under the NDPS Act, however, the offences involved in the

antecedents are also very serious including under Section 307 of

the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

7. Accordingly no case is made out for grant of Anticipatory

Bail.

8. The Anticipatory Bail Application is dismissed.

Digitally signed by SONALI SONALI MILIND MILIND PATIL [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.] PATIL Date:

2026.01.29 18:46:24 +0530

1 (2012) 8 SCC 730

Page 4 Sonali