Allowed

Gokul Parashuram Sansare v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC28 Oct 2021BA/2196/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the applicant in a criminal case involving alleged opium cultivation under the NDPS Act, noting discrepancies in the land record details while releasing him on bond with a reporting obligation and cooperation conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail on personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties in like amounts, required to attend police station monthly for 24 months, and cooperate with the trial court.

Gokul Parashuram Sansare Vs the State of Maharashtra — Narcotics (NDPS) | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

BA-2196-2021.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

BAIL APPLICATION NO.2196 OF 2021

¶5

GOKUL PARASHURAM SANSARE

¶6

)...APPLICANT

¶7

V/s.

¶8

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

¶9

)...RESPONDENT

¶10

Mr.Prashant Aher, Advocate for the Applicant.

¶11

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

¶12

CORAM : V. G. BISHT, J.

¶13

 RESERVED ON : 25th OCTOBER 2021
 PRONOUNCED ON : 28th OCTOBER 2021

¶14

P.C.:

¶15

1The present application has been moved by the

¶16

applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in

¶17

Crime No.90 of 2021 registered with Taluka Police Station,

¶18

Malegaon, Nashik, for offences punishable under Section 201 of

¶19

the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Section 15 and 18 of the

¶20

Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (N.D.P.S. Act).

¶21

AVK 1/6

¶22

BA-2196-2021.doc

¶23

2On 24th February 2021, informant P.S.I. Mohit Vitthal

¶24

More along with other officers of Taluka Police Station,
Malegaon, were called by Police Inspector Devidas Dumne and
were informed that the Superintendent of Police, Nashik Rural,
had received information that the applicant and others, all
residents of Village Ganegaon, Taluka Malegaon, District Nashik,
had planted opium plants in their respective fields. Accordingly,
the Superintendent of Police directed the said officers to conduct
a raid in the fields. Pursuant thereto, the police conducted the
raid and noticed that green plants including the flowers and
flowering fruiting tops were seen growing in the said fields. It is
alleged by the prosecution that the applicant is the owner of Gat
No.105 in which opium plants were being ploughed. When
confronted, the applicant allegedly admitted that he had grown
the said opium plants. Accordingly, First Information Report
(FIR) came to be lodged.

¶25

3Mr.Prashant Aher, learned counsel for the applicant,
at the very outset, submits that other two accused, namely,

¶26

AVK 2/6

¶27

BA-2196-2021.doc

¶28

Nimba Chandu Shillak and Rameshwar Ambadas Sasare have
already been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 13th
October 2021 and, therefore, he seeks parity for the applicant.

¶29

4I have perused the said orders passed by this Court in
Bail Application Nos.2976 of 2021 and 3033 of 2021.

¶30

5Mr.Dedhia, learned APP, has not disputed the above

¶31

factual position and submitted that appropriate orders may be
passed.

¶32

6It is pertinent to note from the record and more
particularly the FIR that the applicant was allegedly found
present in Gat No.105. However, the 7/12 extract filed on record
by the Investigating Officer is pertaining to Gat No.105/3 (page
nos.60 and 61). Thus, there is no clarity whether the alleged
opium was found in Gat No.105, as is claimed in the FIR, or in
Gat No.105/3, the 7/12 extract of which is filed on record. Since
the small quantity and commercial quantity with respect to

¶33

AVK 3/6

¶34

BA-2196-2021.doc

¶35

cultivation of opium/poppy has not been specified separately
under the provisions of N.D.P.S. Act, as such, in my view, the
offence in this regard are covered under Section 18(c) of the
N.D.P.S. Act. It is also worth mentioning that Section 18(c) of the
N.D.P.S. Act provides punishment for contravention in relation to
poppy and opium with rigorous imprisonment which may extend
to ten years and with fine, which may extend to one lakh rupees.
Prima facie, it is not clear whether it was Gat No.105 or Gat
No.105/3, as is reflected from the 7/12 extract, where opium
was allegedly found, the benefit of same should be given to the
applicant and the same can be decided on merits by the trial
Court.

¶36

7Investigation in the present matter is also completed

¶37

leading to the filing of the charge-sheet. No antecedents of the
applicant are brought on record. Needless to say, the bar of
Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act, therefore, would not apply in the
given set of facts and circumstances.

¶38

AVK 4/6

¶39

BA-2196-2021.doc

¶40

8 In view of above, I am inclined to allow the

¶41

application. Hence the following order :

¶42

ORDER

¶43

(i) Applicant – Gokul Parshuram Sansare shall be released on bail in Crime No.90 of 2021 registered with Taluka Police Station, Malegaon, Nashik, on his executing P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties in like amount.

¶44

(ii)The applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station on the first Saturday of every month between 10.00 a.m. to 11.00 a.m. for a period of 24 months from the date of his release.

¶45

(iii)The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to influence / contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case.

¶46

(iv)The applicant to co-operate with the conduct of the trial and attend the trial Court on all dates, unless exempted.

¶47

AVK 5/6

¶48

BA-2196-2021.doc

¶49

(v)Parties to act on copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar of this Court.

¶50

(vi)The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶51

(V. G. BISHT, J.)

¶52

Digitally signed by ARTI ARTI VILAS VILAS KHATATE KHATATE Date: 2021.10.28 12:02:20 +0530

¶53

AVK 6/6

Gokul Parashuram Sansare v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gokul Parashuram Sansare v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rambhau Santu Deokar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ganesh Sureshsingh Pardeshi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ganesh Bhimrao Padalkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vilas Nana Rasal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nitin Laxman Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sachin @ Kanchya Rohidas Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra