Premprakash Parasnath Singh vs State of Maharashtra — Narcotics (NDPS) | Bombay HC (2026)

Premprakash Parasnath Singh vs State of Maharashtra — Narcotics (NDPS) | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Applicant enlarged on bail on executing a PR bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one or two local sureties in the like amount, subject to conditions: attendance at the concerned police station on the first Monday of every month (10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.) and at the Trial Court on each date till conclusion of trial unless exempted; not to leave the State of Maharashtra till conclusion of trial; deposit of passport (if not already deposited) with the concerned police station; not to leave India without permission of the trial court; not to tamper with or influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or persons concerned; to inform latest residence and mobile number to the court and IO upon release and on any change; to cooperate with the conduct of the trial; any infraction shall entail cancellation of bail.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Applicant (Accused No.5 of twelve accused in FIR No. 25 of 2022, ANC Worli, under Sections 8(c), 22(c), 25, 27-A and 29 NDPS Act) is entitled to be enlarged on bail, in view of the Supreme Court having granted bail to co-accused Chintan Panseriya on grounds of prolonged incarceration and delayed trial (principle of parity), notwithstanding the Applicant's additional custody in C.R. No. 39 of 2022.

Court's answer

Considering the order passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Chintan (supra) and in view of the principle of parity, the present Applicant is also enlarged on bail.

Ratio / Principle

A plain reading of the Supreme Court's order shows that bail was granted to co-accused Chintan Panseriya in consideration of the period of his incarceration and the time the trial would take; the only distinction between Chintan Panseriya and the present Applicant is that the Applicant is also in custody in connection with C.R. No. 39 of 2022.

Key takeaways

The observations made in this order are prima facie and confined to this application; the Trial Judge is to decide the case on its own merits, uninfluenced by these observations.obiter¶55
The observations made in this order are confined to this application and the present C.R. only.obiter¶56
The Sessions Court is to decide the Applicant's pending bail application in C.R. No. 39 of 2022 on its own merits, without being influenced by this order.obiter

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail Application No. 1836 of 2025 (Dr. Neela Gokhale, J., 16 February 2026): Premprakash Parasnath Singh, Accused No.5 of twelve accused in FIR No. 25 of 2022 (ANC Worli, Mumbai) under Sections 8(c), 22(c), 25, 27-A and 29 NDPS Act, sought release; his earlier bail application had been rejected by the Special Judge (NDPS), Gr. Mumbai on 25 September 2023. Investigation involved recovery of 701 kgs Mephedrone from a Nalasopara godown and 2428 kgs MD (valued approx. Rs. 4,857 crores) from a factory at Ankleshwar; the S.173 CrPC report was filed as Special Case No. 1219 of 2022, charge was framed on 16-1-2026. Counsel relied on the Supreme Court's order dated 28 January 2026 in Chintan Panseriya v. State of Maharashtra (SLP (Crl.) No. 439 of 2026), by which the co-accused - whose bail this Court had refused on merits on 13 November 2025 - was enlarged on bail solely on the basis of over 3.5 years' incarceration and a delayed trial with 159 witnesses proposed. Finding the only distinction to be the Applicant's additional custody in C.R. No. 39 of 2022 (NCB unit), the High Court, applying parity, enlarged the Applicant on a PR bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one or two local sureties, imposing conditions of periodic police-station and trial-court attendance, restriction to Maharashtra and to India absent permission, passport deposit, non-contact with complainant/witnesses, residence/mobile updates and cooperation with trial, breach entailing cancellation. All observations were declared prima facie and confined to this application and the present C.R. only; the pending C.R. 39/2022 bail application was left to the Sessions Court's independent determination.

Ajit Pathrikar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1836 OF 2025

Premprakash Parasnath Singh ...Applicant Versus State Of Maharashtra ...Respondent

Mr. Atul Sarpande a/w Nilesh Bangar, Kamlesh Satre, for the Applicant.

Ms. Megha S. Bajoria , APP for the State-Respondent.

PI – Santosh Salunkhe , ANC Worli, Crime Branch, Mumbai, is present.

CORAM DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J. DATED: 16^th FEBRUARY 2026

PC:-

1. The Applicant seeks his release on bail in connection with FIR No.25 of 2022 dated 29^th March 2022 registered with the Anti Narcotic Cell (ANC), Worli Unit, Mumbai for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 22(c), 25, 27-A and

29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 ('NDPS Act' for short).

2. There are in all twelve accused. The present Applicant is Accused No.5.

Page 1 of 9 16^th February 2026

3. While on patrolling duty, the police officials of the ANC, Worli found and arrested Accused No.1. Accused No.1 was interrogated and he revealed the name of Accused No.2. Accused No.2 led to the arrest of Accused Nos.3 and 4. According to Mr. Atul Sarpande, learned counsel for the Applicant, nothing was recovered from Accused No.4. However, at his behest and disclosure of Accused No.4, 701 kgs of Mephedrone was recovered from a godown at Nalasopara. The present Applicant had revealed that he used to purchase the Mephedrone from the said godown from Accused No.5. Thereafter, the rest of the accused were roped in by the ANC. The present Applicant also revealed the information referring at Ankleshwar, Gujarat. which was run by one Chintan Panseriya, co-accused. Thus, the present Applicant was arrested on 3^rd August 2022.

4. On completion of investigation, the final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was filed before the Sessions Court, Mumbai as Special Case No.1219 of

Page 2 of 9

16^th February 2026

When the Ankleshwar Police visited the factory premises on 16^th August 2022, a large quantity of contraband goods was seized from the premises. Accordingly, the Applicant and the Co-accused were arrested on various dates. From the factory owned by Accused No.8, a total of 2428 Kgs of MD was recovered from all the accused, the value of which is determined to be approximately Rs. 4,857 crores.

5. The Applicant made an application seeking bail before the Special Judge (NDPS), City Civil and Sessions Court, Gr. Mumbai. However, by order dated 25^th September 2023, the said application was rejected. Hence, the Applicant is before this Court seeking the relief as prayed.

6. Heard Mr. Atul Sarpande, learned advocate appearing

for the Applicant and Ms. Megha Bajoria, learned APP representing the State.

7. At the very outset, Mr. Sarpande tendered an order dated 28^th January, 2026 passed by the Supreme Court in the

Page 3 of 9 16^th February 2026

matter of Chintan Panseriya v. State of Maharashtra¹ . He submitted that while this Court had rejected the bail application of the co-accused Chintan Panseriya by order dated 13^th November, 2025, on merits, the Supreme Court in an SLP, assailing the judgment of this Court, has enlarged said Chintan Panseriya on bail on the basis of long incarceration suffered by him and a delayed trial. The said order is taken on record.

8. Ms. Megha Bajoria, learned APP, submits that there is an antecedent insofar as the present Applicant is concerned. The Applicant was already in custody in C.R. No.39 of 2022 registered with the NCB unit. The Applicant is in custody in that C.R. as on date. During the pendency of his custody in the present case, he was also arrested in connection with the previous C.R. i.e. C.R. No. 39 of 2022. However, insofar as the present C.R. is concerned, the Supreme Court in the case of Chintan (Supra), has observed as under:

1 SLP (Crl.) No. 439 of 2026.

Page 4 of 9 16^th February 2026

“4. It appears that on 16-1-2026, charge came to be framed. The matter is now kept on 30-1-2026 for the purpose of compliance with the provision of Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

We do not undermine the seriousness of the alleged crime. We are mindful of the fact that the prosecution is for the offence punishable under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985. At the same time, we should not overlook the fact that the 3 petitioner is in judicial custody as an under-trial prisoner past 3 years and 6 months and prosecution intends to examine as many as 159 witnesses. Examination of 159 witnesses or even 50% of the same is going to take a pretty long time. At times, we wonder why prosecution wants to examine so many witnesses and thereby prolong the trial and delay the same. We have observed in number of orders that the prosecution should examine important witnesses and try to establish its case. There is no point in multiplying the witnesses on one and the same issue.

Be that as it may, since the Special Public Prosecutor could be said to the In-charge of the trial, we have to leave it to his better discretion.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has manifold contentions to raise in so far as the

Page 5 of 9 16^th February 2026

merits of the case is concerned. However, we do not want to go into the merits of these contentions at this point of time.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner brought to our notice that there are cases almost 10 years old pending in the Trial Court as on date.

In the overall view of the matter, we have been persuaded to exercise our discretion in favour of the petitioner.”

9. Thus, a plain reading of the order passed by the Supreme Court indicates that the Court was persuaded to exercise its jurisdiction in favour of co-accused Chintan Panseriya considering the period of his incarceration and the time that will be taken to conclude the trial. The only distinction insofar as Chintan Panseriya and the present Applicant are concerned is that the present Applicant is also in custody in connection with C.R. No. 39 of 2022.

10. Considering the order in the case of Chintan (supra) passed by the Supreme Court and in view of the principle of

Page 6 of 9 16^th February 2026

parity, the present Applicant is also enlarged on bail and it is ordered as under:

ORDER

i) The Applicant be enlarged on bail, on executing PR Bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one or two local sureties in the like amount;

ii) The Applicant shall attend the Police Station concerned, on first Monday of every month between 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. He shall also attend the Trial Court concerned on each and every date as directed, till the conclusion of the trial, save and except if the Applicant is exempted from appearance by orders of the Trial Court.

iii) The Applicant shall not leave the State of Maharashtra till the conclusion of the trial;

Page 7 of 9

16^th February 2026

iv) If the Applicant has not deposited his passport, the Applicant shall deposit the same with the concerned Police Station, if any;

v) The Applicant shall not leave India, without permission of the trial Court;

vi) The Applicant shall not tamper or attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case;

vii) The Applicant shall inform his latest place of residence and mobile contact number immediately after being released and / or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from time to time to the Court seized of the matter and to the Investigating Officer of the concerned Police Station;

viii) The Applicant to co-operate with the conduct of the trial;

Page 8 of 9

16^th February 2026

ix) Any infraction of the aforesaid conditions shall entail cancellation of bail.

11. Application is allowed in the above terms and is accordingly disposed of.

12. It is made clear that the observations made herein are prima facie and are confined to this Application and the Trial Judge to decide the case on its own merits, uninfluenced by the observations made herein.

13. It is further made clear that the observations made herein are confined to this Application and the present C.R. only. Ms. Bajoria has informed me that the bail application of the present Applicant in C.R. No.39 of 2022 is pending before the Sessions Court. Needless to say that the Sessions Court to decide the bail application in CR No. 39 of 2022 on its own merits, without being influenced by this order.

(Dr. Neela Gokhale, J)

Page 9 of 9 16^th February 2026

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Rejection of the Applicant's bail application by the Special Judge (NDPS), City Civil and Sessions Court, Gr. Mumbai, by order dated 25 September 2023.¶19
Special Judge (NDPS), City Civil and Sessions Court, Gr. Mumbai · 2023-09-25
Prior proceeding
FIR No. 25 of 2022 dated 29 March 2022 registered with the Anti Narcotic Cell (ANC), Worli Unit, Mumbai, for offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 22(c), 25, 27-A and 29 of the NDPS Act.¶10
Prior proceeding
Arrest chain: Accused No.1 arrested on patrolling duty; successive disclosures led to other arrests; 701 kgs of Mephedrone recovered from a godown at Nalasopara at the behest/disclosure of Accused No.4; the present Applicant (Accused No.5) was arrested on 3 August 2022.¶14
Prior proceeding
On 16 August 2022 the Ankleshwar Police visited the factory premises and seized a large quantity of contraband goods.¶18
Prior proceeding
A total of 2428 Kgs of MD was recovered from all the accused from the factory owned by Accused No.8, valued at approximately Rs. 4,857 crores.¶18
Prior proceeding
On completion of investigation, the final report under Section 173 CrPC was filed before the Sessions Court, Mumbai as Special Case No. 1219 of 2022.¶15
Prior proceeding
This Court had rejected the bail application of co-accused Chintan Panseriya by order dated 13 November 2025, on merits.¶24
Prior proceeding
Counsel tendered an order dated 28 January 2026 passed by the Supreme Court in the matter of Chintan Panseriya v. State of Maharashtra.¶22
Prior proceeding
The Supreme Court, in SLP (Crl.) No. 439 of 2026 assailing this Court's judgment, enlarged co-accused Chintan Panseriya on bail on the basis of long incarceration suffered by him and a delayed trial.¶24
Prior proceeding
Per the quoted Supreme Court order, Chintan Panseriya had been in judicial custody as an under-trial prisoner past 3 years and 6 months, and the prosecution intended to examine as many as 159 witnesses.¶29
Prior proceeding
Per the quoted Supreme Court order, charge came to be framed on 16-1-2026 and the matter was kept on 30-1-2026 for compliance with Section 294 CrPC.¶28
Prior proceeding
Antecedent: the Applicant was already in custody in C.R. No. 39 of 2022 registered with the NCB unit and remains in custody in that C.R. as on date; during the pendency of the present case he was also arrested in connection with that previous C.R.¶25
Prior proceeding
The Applicant's bail application in C.R. No. 39 of 2022 is pending before the Sessions Court, as informed by the APP.¶56