Dismissed¶¶28

Abhishek Rajendra Singh v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC11 Feb 2026BA/4203/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NDPS bail application dismissed; Crime No. 8 of 2025 ANC Worli Mumbai; charas approx 1 Kg 120 gms commercial quantity seized from bag carried by applicant; panchanama typographical discrepancies confer no benefit; Section 50 compliance not examined at bail stage (recovery from bag, not person); no specific number of witnesses prescribed, panch-witness reliance left to trial court; Section 37 rigours applied; High Court of Bombay Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction; R.M. Joshi J.; 17 March 2026; applicant Abhishek Rajendra Singh.

What did the court decide?

Prima facie evidence on record, coupled with the fact that the contraband article was seized in commercial quantity from the applicant, brings the case within the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act; consequently the bail application is dismissed. ¶¶27

Abhishek Rajendra Singh vs State of Maharashtra — Narcotics (NDPS) | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in Crime No. 8 of 2025, i.e., whether the prosecution case can prima facie be accepted on the material evidence on record such that the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply. +3 more

¶¶21

Court's answer

¶¶27

Ratio / Principle

Typographical errors or discrepancies of any form in the panchnama do not confer any benefit on the applicant; other material on record clearly shows the contraband was seized at the instance of the present applicant and recorded as Article 3.

¶¶22

Key takeaways

Since the recovery of the contraband was made from the bag which the accused was holding and not from his person, this Court finds substance in the Learned APP's contention that compliance of Section 50 of the Act is not required to be examined at the bail stage.ratio¶¶21
Law does not prescribe any specific number of witnesses to prove a fact; whether to rely upon the evidence of panch witnesses and the consequence of non-recording of statements of independent witnesses is for the learned trial court to decide, and this Court cannot go into that issue at the bail stage.obiter¶¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail Application No. 4203 of 2025 (High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) by Abhishek Rajendra Singh in Crime No. 8 of 2025, ANC Worli Unit, Mumbai, for offences under Sections 8(c), 20(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, before R.M. Joshi, J.; dismissed on 17 March 2026. Prosecution case: approximately 1 Kg. 120 gms. of purported charas seized by panchanama from a bag carried by the applicant on the intervening night of 11-12 January 2025; charge-sheet filed after investigation. Held: (1) typographical errors/discrepancies in the panchanama confer no benefit on the applicant, other material on record confirming seizure at his instance recorded as Article 3; (2) recovery having been from a bag and not from the person of the accused, compliance of Section 50 NDPS Act need not be gone into at the bail stage; (3) law prescribes no specific number of witnesses - reliance on panch witnesses and the effect of non-recorded statements of independent witnesses is left to the trial court; (4) prima facie evidence coupled with commercial-quantity seizure from the applicant engages the rigours of Section 37, and the bail application is dismissed accordingly.

¶1

901-BA-4203-2025.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 4203 OF 2025

¶4

Digitally signed by SHRADDHA SHRADDHA KAMLESH KAMLESH TALEKAR TALEKAR Date: 2026.03.24 15:18:44 +0530

¶5

Abhishek Rajendra Singh …Applicant Versus State Of Maharashtra through ANC Worli Unit, Mumbai …Respondent

¶6

Mr. Veerdhaval Kakade a/w. Mr. Kunal Rathod, for Applicant. Ms. Vera Shinde , APP, for Respondent-State. API Amol Kadam, ANC Worli (Mob. 9867994909).

¶7

CORAM : R.M. JOSHI, J. Date : 17^th March, 2026

¶8

PC :

¶9

The Applicant seeks bail in connection with Crime No. 8 of 2025 registered with ANC Worli Unit, Mumbai Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c) along with 20(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“ the Act ”).

¶10

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on the intervening night of 11^th and 12^th January, 2025, during patrolling, the accused was found in suspicious circumstances. When he was searched, a bag carried by him was found containing contraband which was purportedly charas.

¶11

Page 1 of 4 17^th March, 2026

¶12

Shraddha

¶13

901-BA-4203-2025.doc

¶14

The pancha witnesses were called. Panchanama was drawn of the seizure of Charas weighing approximately 1 Kg. 120 gms. The accused persons came to be arrested in connection with the said crime. After completion of investigation, charge sheet is filed.

¶15

Learned counsel for the Applicant submits provision of seizure panchanama indicates that there are discrepancies therein in respect of the article numbers so also, name of the person, at whose instance, the said contraband was seized. It is his submission that there is also inconsistency in recording of articles and which leads to the confusion as to which contraband article seized from the different accused persons. He argued that this inconsistency goes to the root of the case and benefit of the same should go to the applicant/accused. It is submission that having regard to this fact, rigours of Section 37 of the Act have no application to the present case.

¶16

Learned APP opposed the application by contending that on the face of a typographical error is found in the panchanama, it could not become a ground for giving the benefit thereof to the applicant. It is submitted that on the basis of the material evidence on record, it can be seen contraband of commercial quantity was seized from the applicant. It is argued that since the recovery has been done from the bag carried

¶17

Page 2 of 4 17^th March, 2026

¶18

Shraddha

¶19

901-BA-4203-2025.doc

¶20

by the applicant, compliance of section 50 of the Act would not be relevant at this stage. In response to the arguments with the regard to the inconsistency in the treatment recorded in panchnama, photograph of the seized articles is shown to this Court which indicates that article No. 3 has rightly been recorded in respect of the seizure done from the present applicant.

¶21

At this stage, the Court is required to consider as to whether, the case of the prosecution could be prima facie accepted on the basis of material evidence on record. Prima facie perusal of record shows that on account of suspicion, the applicant and co-accused were intercepted. However, the recovery of the contraband had not been done from the person of the accused but from the bag which the accused was holding with him. Thus, this Court finds substance in the contention of Learned APP that at this stage, the Court is not required to go into the compliance of Section 50 of the Act.

¶22

Insofar as the alleged discrepancies in the recording of panchnama is concerned, needless to say that typographical error in any form in the panchnama would not lead to grant of the benefit thereof to the applicant. This observation is inevitable in view of the fact that there is other material on record which clearly shows the contraband was

¶23

Page 3 of 4 17^th March, 2026

¶24

Shraddha

¶25

901-BA-4203-2025.doc

¶26

seized at the instance of the present applicant and being recorded as article 3.

¶27

Learned Counsel for the applicant has also submitted that from panchnama, it can be seen that independent persons were present at the spot, were examined, however, their statements are not recorded. As far as this submission is concerned, law does not prescribe any specific number of witnesses to prove any fact. It is for the learned trial court to decide as to whether rely or not to rely upon the evidence of panch witnesses and to consider the consequence of non-recording of statements of independent witnesses, if any. This Court can not go into the said issue at this stage. Suffice to say, prima facie evidence on record coupled with the fact that the contraband article was seized in commercial quantity from the application, Section 37 of the Act has application in this case.

¶28

As a result, the bail application is dismissed.

¶29

[ R.M. JOSHI, J.]

¶30

Page 4 of 4 17^th March, 2026

¶31

Shraddha

Issues for consideration

4 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in Crime No. 8 of 2025, i.e., whether the prosecution case can prima facie be accepted on the material evidence on record such that the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply.¶¶21
The court held
Prima facie evidence on record, coupled with the fact that the contraband article was seized in commercial quantity from the applicant, brings the case within the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act; consequently the bail application is dismissed.ratio¶¶27
2.
Whether the alleged discrepancies/typographical errors in the seizure panchanama (article numbers and the name of the person at whose instance the contraband was seized) justify granting bail to the applicant.¶¶15
The court held
Typographical errors or discrepancies of any form in the panchnama do not confer any benefit on the applicant; other material on record clearly shows the contraband was seized at the instance of the present applicant and recorded as Article 3.ratio¶¶22
3.
Whether compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act is required or relevant at the bail stage, given that the recovery was effected from a bag carried by the accused and not from his person.¶¶21
The court held
Since the recovery of the contraband was made from the bag which the accused was holding and not from his person, this Court finds substance in the Learned APP's contention that compliance of Section 50 of the Act is not required to be examined at the bail stage.ratio¶¶21
4.
Whether the non-recording of statements of independent persons who were present at the spot and examined undermines the prima facie case for purposes of granting bail.¶¶27
The court held
Law does not prescribe any specific number of witnesses to prove a fact; whether to rely upon the evidence of panch witnesses and the consequence of non-recording of statements of independent witnesses is for the learned trial court to decide, and this Court cannot go into that issue at the bail stage.obiter¶¶27

Abhishek Rajendra Singh v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhishek Rajendra Singh v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sultan Ahmed Abdul Latif Shaikh vs Union of India and Anr.

Pramila Kishor Motwani and Anr.. vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Daniel Gitau Muniyi vs State of Maharashtra

Mohd Afsar Abdul Hai Shaikh @ Panchi vs State of Maharashtra

Ganesh Balaram Patole vs State of Maharashtra

Bankesh Bhavsar S/O Baldev Bhavsar vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.