Manoj Ravindra Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

2] The applicants are seeking bail as they were arrested on 30.10.2024 in connection with Crime No.359/2024, dated 30.10.2024, registered with Mohadi Nagar Police Station, District Dhule, for the offences

¶20

2

¶21

37&38

¶22

punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(c), 22, 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

¶23

3] The learned counsel for the applicants has taken me through the seizure panchanama dated 30.10.2024 wherein description is given as under:

¶24

“ एकापांढऱ्यारंगाच्यागोणीतगांजासदृशहि�रवटहिपवळसररंगाचा अ्቗�वटओलसरवसुकलेलापाने, हि"या, का्ቐ ाअसलेलाउ्ቇ वासाचापदा्ቕ��ानरेशसाखरलालदेसलेयांचे्ቚ माणिणतइले᭤ᯙ.ट/क ाम वजनका्቎ ावरमोजूनपा�तात्याचेवजन३२.७८०हिकलो्ቇ आले. प्ला᭤ᯙ:टकच्या गोणीत गांजा सील"ंद केला. त्याची २५,०००/तितहिकलोअंदाजे्ቚ .”

¶25

4] She has also taken me through the 52A Certificate dated 11.11.2024. She submits that 52A certificate does not describe the content but merely states it to be Ganja. The CA report is now available and describes the seized contraband as flowering / fruiting tops mixed with pieces of leaves, stalks, stems and seeds, which is a ganja.

¶26

5] The learned counsel for the applicants submits that there is discrepancy in all the reports. She submits that there is delay of about 11 days in drawing 52A certificate. She also submits that the sealing process is not appropriately done and there is possibility of tampering. She submits that all these aspects can be decided in the course of trial. There are no antecedents against the applicants. The applicants be granted bail.

¶27

3

¶28

37&38

¶29

6] The learned APP submits that the CA report clearly points out that the content sealed did have a flowering and fruiting tops which is ganja and the sample is also drawn in the presence of the Magistrate.

¶30

7] Having considered the rival submissions, prima facie, there is discrepancy in the police seizure report and 52A certificate and the CA report. The applicants has arguable defence before the trial court and that there are no antecedents against the applicants, thus, bail can be granted to the applicants.

¶31

8] In view of the above, the applications are allowed in the following terms:

¶32

a] The applicants shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.359/2024, dated 30.10.2024, registered with Mohadi Nagar Police Station, District Dhule, for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(c), 22, 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, on furnishing PR bond of Rs.20,000/- each with one or two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶33

b] If the applicants are found in similar offence hereinafter bail granted in the present case will be liable to be re-called.

¶34

4

¶35

37&38

¶36

c] The applicants, upon being released on bail, shall not contact the informant, in any manner whatsoever, during the pendency of the trial.

¶37

d] The applicants shall co-operate with the trial Court and they shall attend each and every date, unless exempted by the trial Court.

¶38

e] The applicants shall not tamper with the evidence of the prosecution and they shall not influence the informant, witnesses and other persons concerned with the case.

¶39

f] The applicants, upon being released on bail, shall place on record of the trial Court the details of their Contact Number and residential address with updates in case of any change.

¶40

9] Needless to say, in case of violation of any of the aforesaid conditions, the bail granted to the applicants shall be liable to be cancelled.

¶41

10] It is also clarified that the observations made in this order are limited to the disposal of the present bail applications. The concerned Court shall proceed further in the matter without being influenced by the observations made hereinabove.

¶42

5

¶43

37&38

¶44

11] The applications stand disposed of.

¶45

[ARUN R. PEDNEKER] JUDGE

¶46

marathe

Manoj Ravindra Patil v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Ravindra Patil v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Adinath Macchindra Pathare Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sabir Ramjan Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Raju Mustak Pathan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

R.K.Mishra and Sons vs Union of India and Anr. through Its the Chairman and Anr.

Dhiraj Shantilal Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mahesh Arun Andhure Vs the State of Maharashtra