Allowed¶29

Vijay Voleti v. Union of India and Anr.

Bombay HC6 Jan 2026ABA/3598/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail; NDPS Act; Mephedrone; NCB Mumbai Zonal Unit; F.No. NCB/MZU/CR-17/2024; Vijay Voleti; Vagdevi Innoscience Pvt. Ltd. Hyderabad; Sections 8(c), 22(c), 28, 29, 37, 67 NDPS Act; commercial quantity; custodial interrogation; Shahnawaz Mohammad Shahjada Shaikh; Shahnawaj Shaikh; Sudeshan Kurup; Nadeem Shaikh; Orange Tours and Travels Sion (E); Section 67 statement; complaint filed; P.R. Bond Rs.25,000; Bombay High Court; N.R. Borkar; dated 07.01.2026

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail: in the event of arrest in F.No. NCB/MZU/CR-17/2024, release on bail on P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- with one surety or two sureties in the like amount; applicant to attend the Office of NCB, Mumbai as and when called by the Investigating Officer and cooperate in further investigation, if any. ¶29

Vijay Voleti vs Union of India and Anr. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, apprehending arrest in F.No. NCB/MZU/CR-17/2024 registered by NCB, Mumbai for offences under Sections 8(c) r/w. 22(c), 28 and 29 of the NDPS Act, is entitled to anticipatory bail. +1 more

¶9

Court's answer

Anticipatory bail granted: in the event of arrest in F.No. NCB/MZU/CR-17/2024 (Sections 8(c), 22(c), 28 and 29 NDPS Act), the applicant is to be released on bail on executing a P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- with one surety or two sureties in the like amount, conditioned on attending the Office of NCB, Mumbai as and when called by the Investigating Officer and cooperating in further investigation, if any.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

That one more crime of similar nature was registered against the applicant after the complaint was filed cannot be a ground for seeking his custodial interrogation, since investigation stands completed and NCB has already filed the complaint case against him; accordingly, on these peculiar facts the Special P.P.'s reliance on Section 37 NDPS (commercial quantity) rigors did not preclude anticipatory bail.

¶27

Key takeaways

Factual findings underpinning the decision: the search panchanama showed nothing incriminating at the applicant's factory premises; the applicant was present at the search but was not taken into custody; and even after recording the statement of co-accused Sudeshan Kurup on 3rd September 2024, only notices were issued and no efforts were made to arrest the applicant.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (N.R. Borkar, J.; order dated 07.01.2026) allowed anticipatory bail to Vijay Voleti, Managing Director of Vagdevi Innoscience Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad, who was apprehending arrest in F.No. NCB/MZU/CR-17/2024 registered by NCB, Mumbai Zonal Unit for offences under Sections 8(c) r/w. 22(c), 28 and 29 of the NDPS Act, following seizure of about 5 kgs of Mephedrone at Sion (E) on 18.07.2024 and co-accused statements (Shahnawaz Shaikh under Section 67; Sudeshan Kurup) alleging supply of consignments (3 kgs worth Rs.10 Lakhs; 5 kgs worth Rs.15 Lakhs) by the applicant. Holding: registration of a further crime of similar nature after filing of the complaint is no ground for custodial interrogation where investigation is complete and the complaint already filed; the applicant's factory search yielded nothing incriminating, he was present at the search but not arrested, and only notices followed Kurup's statement; the Section 37 'commercial quantity' rigors pressed by the Special P.P. did not preclude bail on these facts. Release ordered on a P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties, subject to attending the NCB office as called and cooperating in any further investigation.

¶1

901-aba-3598-24.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3598 OF 2024

¶3

Vijay Voleti …Applicant V/s.

¶4

Union of India and Anr.

¶5

...Respondents.

¶6

Mr. Taraq Sayed a/w. Adv. Anish Pereira, Adv. Ashwinii Achari and Adv. Aryan Kotwal for the Applicant. Mrs. Aruna Pai, Spl.P.P. for the Respondent/UOI. Mr.P.H. Gaikwad, APP for the Respondent/State. PSI Vicky, IO NCB, MZU is present.

¶7

CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 07.01.2026.

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

This is an application for anticipatory bail.

¶10

The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with F.No. NCB/MZU/CR-17/2024 registered by the Narcotics Control Bureau, Mumbai Zonal Unit, Mumbai (for short “NCB, Mumbai”) for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w. 22(c), 28 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “NDPS Act”)

¶11

On 18^th July 2024, approximately 5 kgs of Mephedrone was seized from the office of Orange Tours and Travels at Sion (E). In connection to the said seizure, co-accused Shahnawaz Mohammad Shahjada Shaikh was apprehended and his statement under

1/5

Dinesh S. Sherla

901-aba-3598-24.odt

Section 67 of the NDPS Act was recorded. As per his statement, the involvement of the present applicant and other co-accused was revealed. The applicant is the Managing Director of Vagdevi Innoscience Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad and is allegedly involved in the supply of contraband. Thereafter, on the very same day, the factory premises of the present applicant was searched, however, no incriminating material was recovered during the search and accordingly, the panchanama was drawn.

¶16

During the course of investigation, the statement of another co-accused Sudeshan Kurup came to be recorded, wherein he has stated that while he was in judicial custody for another crime, he met co-accused Nadeem Shaikh and informed him that the present applicant supplies Mephedrone for the purpose of sale. Subsequently, upon securing bail, co-accused Nadeem Shaikh along with co-accused Shahnawaj Shaikh, acquired a consignment of 3 kgs of Mephedrone worth Rs.10 Lakhs and later acquired more 5 kgs of Mephedrone worth Rs.15 Lakhs from the present applicant at Hyderabad. After completion of the investigation, the respondent No.1-NCB, Mumbai has filed a complaint case against the present applicant and other co-accused. Subsequent to the filing of the complaint, the applicant came to be arrested in another crime of similar nature.

¶17

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned Special P.P. for the respondent No.1-NCB, Mumbai.

2/5

Dinesh S. Sherla

901-aba-3598-24.odt

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has nothing to do with the alleged crime. It is submitted that after apprehending co-accused Shahnawaj Shaikh, his statement was recorded. It is submitted that there was no reference of the present applicant in that statement, however, search was carried out at the factory premises of the present applicant and no incriminating material was found. It is submitted that the applicant was interrogated and was allowed to go. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that even after recording the statement of coaccused Sudeshan Kurup, no steps were taken to arrest the present applicant and the respondent No.1-NCB, Mumbai thought it fit to file a complaint case against the present applicant and other co-accused. It is submitted that now there arises no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant just because he came to be arrested in another crime. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this Court has already protected the applicant from arrest by order dated 31^st December 2024.

¶22

On the other hand, learned Special P.P. for the respondent No.1-NCB, Mumbai submits that the applicant is involved in a serious offence under the provisions of NDPS Act. It is submitted that commercial quantity of 5 Kgs of Mephedrone was found in possession of the co-accused Shahnawaj Shaikh. It is submitted that thus rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would apply in the present case. Learned Special P.P. submits that there is enough incriminating material against the present applicant to connect him with the alleged crime. It is submitted that to unearth the

3/5

Dinesh S. Sherla

901-aba-3598-24.odt

larger conspiracy, custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary. It is further submitted that the applicant is involved in one more crime of similar nature. It is submitted that considering overall facts and circumstances, the applicant may not be released on anticipatory bail.

¶27

Admittedly, after the arrest of co-accused Shahnawaj Shaikh, on the very same day, the factory premises of the present applicant was searched. The search panchanama shows that nothing incriminating was found from the factory premises of the present applicant. The panchanama further shows that the applicant was present at the time of search, however, he was not taken into custody. Even after recording the statement of coaccused Sudeshan Kurup, on 3^rd September 2024, only notices were issued to the present applicant and it appears that no efforts were made to arrest the present applicant. The custodial interrogation of the applicant is sought because subsequent to filing of the complaint case, one more crime of similar nature came to be registered against him. In my view that cannot be a ground for seeking custodial interrogation of the present applicant when on completion of investigation, NCB has already filed the complaint case against the applicant. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, I am inclined to release the applicant on anticipatory bail. In the result, the following order is passed.

¶28

ORDER

¶29

A) The Application is allowed.

4/5

Dinesh S. Sherla

901-aba-3598-24.odt

B) In the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with F.No. NCB/MZU/CR-17/2024 registered by the Narcotics Control Bureau, Mumbai Zonal Unit, Mumbai (for short “NCB, Mumbai”) for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 22(c), 28 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “NDPS Act”), he be released on bail on executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety or two sureties in the like amount.

¶34

C) The applicant shall attend the Office of NCB, Mumbai as and when called by the Investigating Officer and shall cooperate in the further investigation, if any.

¶35

[N.R.BORKAR, J.]

¶36

5/5

¶37

Dinesh S. Sherla

Vijay Voleti v. Union of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Voleti v. Union of India and Anr.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Hemant Raghunath Thakur vs The State of Maharashtra

Kulsum W/O Faiyaz Khan and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra

Pooja Dilip Seth vs State of Maharashtra

Vinod Gabrial Dcosta vs State of Maharashtra

Sandip Krishna Kambale vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Parshuram Yallappa Kakshagiri vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.