Dismissed¶45

Rahul Kisan Gawali v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC10 Mar 2026BA/16/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NDPS bail dismissed — 2 kg 540 g Mephedrone (commercial quantity) seized at Khar Danda, Mumbai (Crime No. 79/2023, Unit-IX DCB CID); Section 42(1)-(2) information-in-writing compliance upheld; Section 50 two-option notice held compliant; Surat Singh distinguished on facts; Section 52A inventory delay answered via NCB v. Kashif (2024) 11 SCC 372; stock-pancha and videography objections rejected at bail stage; twin conditions not complied; Bombay HC Criminal Appellate, R. M. Joshi J., Bail Application No. 16 of 2025, decided 10.04.2026.

What did the court decide?

Prima facie, the record and documentary evidence establish that the secret information was reduced into writing and communicated to the immediate superior officer, substantiating compliance of Section 42(1) and (2) of the NDPS Act. ¶29

Rahul Kisan Gawali vs State of Maharashtra — Narcotics (NDPS) | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether the secret information was reduced into writing and communicated to the immediate superior officer, i.e., compliance of Section 42(1) and (2) of the NDPS Act. +5 more

¶14

Court's answer

¶29

Ratio / Principle

The Applicant was given only two options — search in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate; no third option was given by the officer who took the search; therefore it cannot be said that there is non-compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act.

¶30

Key takeaways

Owing to difference in the facts of the case, the judgment in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Surat Singh (Supra) has no application to the present case.ratio¶33
On the delay in compliance of Section 52A, the Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif, per which any procedural irregularity or illegality committed in conducting the search and seizure would by itself not make the entire evidence collected during investigation inadmissible, and the Court must consider whether serious prejudice has been caused to the accused.ratio¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction), R. M. Joshi J., 10.04.2026 — Bail Application No. 16 of 2025: Rahul Kisan Gawali sought bail in Crime No. 79 of 2023 (now Special Case No. 764/2024), Unit-IX DCB CID, Mumbai, under Sections 8(c), 22(c), 29 and 27(a) of the NDPS Act, 1985, following seizure of 2 kg 540 g of Mephedrone from him on 14.10.2023. All defence objections were rejected: (i) documentary evidence substantiates that the secret information was reduced into writing and communicated to the immediate superior — compliance of Section 42(1) and (2); (ii) the Section 50 notice/panchanama gave only two options (Gazetted Officer or Magistrate) and no third option, hence no non-compliance; State of Himachal Pradesh v. Surat Singh (2026 INSC 240) distinguished on facts; (iii) delay in Section 52A inventory answered by reliance on Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif (2024) 11 SCC 372 — procedural irregularity or illegality by itself does not render the evidence inadmissible; (iv) whether panchas are 'stock witnesses' is for the Trial Court, not determinable at the bail stage; (v) absence of videography cannot be equated with mandatory Sections 42/50 compliance. Recovery of commercial quantity supported by the C.A. Report meant the twin conditions were not complied with; the Bail Application was dismissed.

¶1

3-BA-16-2025.DOC

¶2

Shivgan

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 16 OF 2025

¶5

Rahul Kisan Gawali …Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra …Respondent

¶6

Mr. Kunal Aher , with Surbhi S. Agrawal, for the Applicant. Ms. Sangeeta Shinde , APP for the Respondent-State. Mr. Shriram Ghodake , API attached to Unit-9, DCB, CID, Mumbai, present.

¶7

CORAM: R. M. JOSHI, J. DATED: 10^th APRIL, 2026.

¶8

PC:-

¶9

The Applicant seeks bail in connection with Crime No. 79 of 2023 (now Special Case No.764/2024) registered with Unit-IX, DCB CID, Mumbai for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 22(c), 29 and 27(a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

¶10

In short, it is the case of the prosecution that on 14^th October 2023, Police Inspector, Naik attached to DCB CID, received information from the Informer that the Applicant and the Coaccused would be coming to Khala Maidan, besides Smashanbhoomi, Carter Road, Khar Danda, Khar (West) to sell Mephedrone (‘MD’) to their customers. Information also revealed that they were arriving in a black colour car bearing No. MH-01-

¶11

Page 1 of 6 10^th April, 2026.

¶12

3-BA-16-2025.DOC

¶13

BU-2913. The said information was communicated to the higher authorities. A raid was conducted. The Applicant came to be accosted along with the Co-accused. After compliance of the provisions of the NDPS Act, 2 Kilograms 540 grams of MD was seized from the Applicant. Panchanama was drawn in presence of pancha witnesses. Seized contraband was placed before the Magistrate in compliance of the provisions of Section 52A of the NDPS Act. On conclusion of investigation, the charge-sheet is filed.

¶14

Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that in this case, there is non-compliance of mandatory provision of Section 42 of the NDPS Act as the information received by the Officer has not been reduced into writing nor it was communicated to the immediate superior in compliance of Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act. He further argues that there is non-compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act in view of the option given by the officer of search in his presence too. To support his submission, he places reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Surat Singh¹ . It is further argument that in the instant case, there was delay in carrying out the inventory panchanama after the seizure of the contraband. To support the submission on that ground, he is entitled for bail, reference is made to the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rambabu v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.² . Finally, he argued that independent witnesses though available at the spot of the seizure, were not used, however, stock panchas were used. In order to support his

¶15

1 2026 INSC 240

¶16

2 Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5648/2025 with SLP (Crl) No.5732/2025 decided on 13.8.2025

¶17

Page 2 of 6 10^th April, 2026.

¶18

3-BA-16-2025.DOC

¶19

submission that on these grounds, he is entitled for bail, reference is made to the order of the Delhi High Court in the case of Bantu v. State Government of NCT of Delhi³ . The said judgment is also referred in order to argue that there is no videography done of the seizure and therefore, this seizure would become illegal. To support this submission, reference is made to the order of the Delhi High Court in the case of Gulshan v. State Government of NCT of Delhi⁴ and by Calcutta High Court in the case of Kalu Sk. @ Kuran and Kabir Sk. v. State of West Bengal⁵ . On these amongst other contentions, he seeks bail.

¶20

The learned APP opposes the Bail Application. Firstly, it is pointed out that the charge-sheet indicates that the information received was duly reduced into writing and was communicated to immediate superior. In this regard, she referred to the relevant documents in the charge-sheet. Apart from this, attention of the Court is drawn to the panchanama indicating that only two options, i.e., option of search before the Gazetted Officer and the Magistrate was given to the Accused unlike in the case of Surat Singh (Supra). It is pointed out that there is compliance of the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. As far as the delay in compliance of Section 52 of the NDPS Act is concerned, according to her, the same is explainable during the trial.

¶21

Before recording reasons, it needs to be mentioned that after the entire arguments were over and after hearing both sides, when this Court showed its disinclination to grant relief to the Applicant

¶22

3 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4671.

¶23

4 Bail Application No. 1289/2025 decided on 2.5.2025.

¶24

5 C.R.M.(NDPS) 492 of 2022 with C.R.M (NDPS) 493 of 2022.

Page 3 of 6

10^th April, 2026.

3-BA-16-2025.DOC

and has started the dictation of the order, at this stage, the learned counsel for the Applicant tries to point out to the Court that Bail Application of the Co-accused is scheduled for hearing on 29^th April 2026. No doubt, ordinarily, it is expected from the Court that if there are more than one applications pending in the same C.R., the Court is required to take up both the Applications or said Applications together. However, the intention of the learned counsel for the Applicant in making those submissions was to prevent this Court from passing the order rather than a bonafide attempt to tell the Court that Co-accused’s Bail Application is pending. If it was so, it was expected from him that he would have mentioned the same at the beginning of his arguments. Once the Court after hearing both sides have disclosed that there is no case for bail, such submission cannot be entertained. Hence, this Court proceeds to pass further order.

¶29

Herein in this case, prima-facie perusal of the record indicates that the secret information was received by the Officer and he reduced the same into writing and communicated it to his immediate superior. Documentary evidence on record substantiates the said compliance of Section 42(1) and (2) of the NDPS Act.

¶30

Insofar as the compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act is concerned, the panchanama as well as the written notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act given to the Applicant indicates that he was given only two options as to seek search in presence of Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. No third option was given by the officer, who had taken the search of the Applicant. Thus, it cannot be said that there is non-compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act.

¶31

Page 4 of 6 10^th April, 2026.

¶32

3-BA-16-2025.DOC

¶33

In respectful view of this Court for difference in the facts of the case, the judgment in the case of Surat Singh (Supra) has no application to the present case.

¶34

With regard to the delay in compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif⁶ has dealt with the said issue and has held as under which reads thus:

¶35

(iv) ……..

¶36

(v) Any procedural irregularity or illegality found to have been committed in conducting the search and seizure during the course of investigation or thereafter, would by itself not make the entire evidence collected during the course of investigation, inadmissible. The Court would have to consider all the circumstances and find out whether any serious prejudice has been caused to the accused.”

¶37

With regard to the allegation of use of stock panchas are concerned, it is not open for the High Court while dealing with the Bail Application to accept the contention of the Accused that the pancha witnesses are stock witnesses. Needless to say, that it is for the Trial Court to consider the evidentiary value of those pancha witnesses during the trial. Any observations made by the High

¶38

6 (2024) 11 SCC 372

¶39

Page 5 of 6 10^th April, 2026.

¶40

3-BA-16-2025.DOC

¶41

Court in this regard would amount to cause interference in the trial.

¶42

As far as the videography and photography of the search and seizure is concerned, first of all, the same cannot be equated with the mandatory compliance of Sections 42 or 50 of the NDPS Act in order to enable the Applicant to seek bail. Apart from the fact that there are panchanamas and prima-facie, evidence on record indicating search and seizure being conducted in due compliance of the provisions of the NDPS Act, for want of any such mandatory provisions, no benefit thereof could be given to the Applicant.

¶43

In view of the fact that this is a case of recovery of commercial quantity of contraband, which is supported by the C.A. Report, twin conditions are not complied with.

¶44

Having regard to the afore-stated discussion, the Applicant has not made out case for grant of bail.

¶45

The Bail Application stands dismissed and disposed of.

¶46

(R. M. JOSHI, J.)

¶47

Digitally signed by SHAMBHAVI SHAMBHAVI NILESH NILESH SHIVGAN SHIVGAN Date: 2026.04.16 12:52:55 +0530

¶48

Page 6 of 6 10^th April, 2026.

Issues for consideration

6 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the secret information was reduced into writing and communicated to the immediate superior officer, i.e., compliance of Section 42(1) and (2) of the NDPS Act.¶14
The court held
Prima facie, the record and documentary evidence establish that the secret information was reduced into writing and communicated to the immediate superior officer, substantiating compliance of Section 42(1) and (2) of the NDPS Act.ratio¶29
2.
Whether the options given to the Applicant before the search satisfied Section 50 of the NDPS Act.¶14
The court held
The Applicant was given only two options — search in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate; no third option was given by the officer who took the search; therefore it cannot be said that there is non-compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act.ratio¶30
3.
Whether the delay in carrying out the inventory panchanama after the seizure of the contraband (Section 52A compliance) entitled the Applicant to bail.¶14
The court held
On the delay in compliance of Section 52A, the Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif, per which any procedural irregularity or illegality committed in conducting the search and seizure would by itself not make the entire evidence collected during investigation inadmissible, and the Court must consider whether serious prejudice has been caused to the accused.ratio¶34
4.
Whether use of stock panchas despite availability of independent witnesses at the spot of seizure affected the Applicant's entitlement to bail.¶14
The court held
While dealing with a bail application, it is not open to the High Court to accept the contention that the pancha witnesses are stock witnesses; their evidentiary value is for the Trial Court to consider during trial, and any observation by the High Court would amount to interference in the trial.ratio¶37
5.
Whether absence of videography of the seizure rendered the seizure illegal and entitled the Applicant to bail.¶19
The court held
Videography and photography of the search and seizure cannot be equated with mandatory compliance of Sections 42 or 50 of the NDPS Act so as to enable the Applicant to seek bail; with panchanamas and prima facie evidence of due compliance on record, no benefit thereof could be given to the Applicant.ratio¶42
6.
Whether the twin conditions applicable to a case involving commercial quantity of contraband were complied with.¶43
The court held
This being a case of recovery of commercial quantity of contraband, supported by the C.A. Report, the twin conditions are not complied with.ratio¶43

Rahul Kisan Gawali v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Kisan Gawali v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sameer Rajesh Basopiya vs State of Maharashtra

Faizal Shehzad Khan vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Anuj Manojkumar Pande vs State of Maharashtra

Vishnu Ganpat Tayshete vs Ashok Ganpat Tayshete and Ors.

Karan Sanjay Jadhav vs the State of Maharashtra

Shehzeen Ziauddin Siddique vs State of Maharashtra