Ravi Kotya Ajmera vs State of Maharashtra — Narcotics (NDPS) | Bombay HC (2026)

Ravi Kotya Ajmera vs State of Maharashtra — Narcotics (NDPS) | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Applicant to be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 1095 of 2021 on executing P.R.Bond of Rs.30,000/- with one or two local sureties in the like amount; conditions imposed to attend the concerned police station as and when required and not to tamper with evidence or attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case; application allowed and disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, in custody for over four years and three months pending trial in Crime No. 1095 of 2021 (Sections 8(c) and 22(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985), is entitled to regular bail on the principle of parity with co-accused Umesh Thorat, notwithstanding the APP's contention that parity is inapplicable as he was the driver of the truck.

Court's answer

Taking into account the applicant's detention of more than four years and three months, the time it will take to conclude the trial, and the release on bail of co-accused Umesh Thorat against whom similar allegations are made, the applicant is entitled to bail on the principle of parity.

Key takeaways

The observations in the order were made only for the purpose of granting bail; the Trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.obiter¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

NDPS bail - parity. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Shivkumar Dige, J.; decision dated 27 March 2026) granted regular bail to the applicant detained for more than four years and three months pending trial in Crime No. 1095 of 2021 (Yewat Police Station, District Pune), registered under Sections 8(c) and 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, arising from the alleged finding of 80.31 kg of ganja in an intercepted truck. Bail was granted on the principle of parity, since co-accused Umesh Thorat, against whom similar allegations are made, had already been released on bail by this Court (Coram: N.R.Borkar, J.); this outweighed the APP's objection that parity did not apply as the applicant had driven the truck. Release ordered on a P.R.Bond of Rs.30,000/- with one or two local sureties in the like amount, subject to attendance at the police station when required and non-tampering/non-influence conditions. The Court clarified its observations were made solely for the bail purpose and the Trial Court should decide independently.

18-BA-1225-2025 (CR).doc

Shubhada S Kadam

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1225 OF 2025

Ravi Kotya Ajmera ….Applicant VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra ….Respondent

Advocate-B. Sharada, Advocate for Applicant. Ms. Kranti Hivrale, APP for Respondent-State.

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 27^th MARCH, 2026.

P.C. :

By this application, the applicant is seeking regular bail in Crime No. 1095 of 2021 registered with Yewat Police Station, District Pune, for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) and 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

It is prosecution’s case that, on secret information, the police intercepted a truck, and upon searching it, found 80.31 kg of ganja.

It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is behind bars for more than four years and three months. It will take time to conclude the trial. The co-accused-Umesh Thorat, against whom similar allegations are made, has been released on bail by this Court

(Coram : N.R.Borkar, J.). Hence, the applicant is entitled to bail on the principle of parity and requested to allow the application.

Digitally signed by SHUBHADA SHUBHADA SHANKAR SHANKAR KADAM KADAM Date: 2026.04.01 10:57:55 +0530

Page 1 of 3

18-BA-1225-2025 (CR).doc

Shubhada S Kadam

It is contention of learned APP that parity is not applicable to the applicant, as he was the driver of the truck. If the applicant is released on bail, he may abscond or threaten the prosecution witnesses. Hence, requested to reject the application.

I have heard both sides, perused charge-sheet and documents produced on record. The applicant is behind bars for more than four years and three months. It will take time to conclude the trial The co-accusedUmesh Thorat, against whom similar allegations are made, has been released on bail. Considering these facts, the applicant is entitled to bail on the principle of parity. Hence, I pass the following order:

ORDER

(i) The applicant be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 1095 of 2021 registered with Yewat Police Station, District Pune, on executing P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one or two local sureties in the like amount.

(ii) The applicant shall attend the concerned police station as and when required.

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

Page 2 of 3

18-BA-1225-2025 (CR).doc

Shubhada S Kadam

The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is accordingly disposed of.

It is made clear that the above observations are made only for the purpose of granting bail and the Trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.

All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

Page 3 of 3