Samadhan Vikram Bhusare vs State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Samadhan Vikram Bhusare vs State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Applicant to be released on bail in Crime No. 320 of 2025 (State Excise Department, Yeola, District Nashik) on furnishing a PR bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount; conditions: (ii) shall not tamper with the evidence and/or influence prosecution witnesses; (iv) shall attend the concerned Police Station as and when required; (iii) Trial Court to decide the case on its own merits and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Applicant should be released on regular bail in Crime No. 320 of 2025 (State Excise Department, Yeola, District Nashik) for offences under Sections 65(a)(e), 81, 83 and 90 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act and Section 123 of the BNS, 2023, arising out of the allegation that duplicate liquor was transported in his car.

Court's answer

Whether the Applicant was aware that the duplicate liquor was being transported from his car is a matter to be determined at trial and does not preclude release on bail.

Ratio / Principle

Regular bail granted: the Applicant had been in custody for more than five months and has no antecedents, and (as the Court records in the same paragraph) the investigation is completed and the charge-sheet has been filed; accordingly bail was allowed subject to conditions.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction (Shivkumar Dige, J.), 22 April 2026 — Regular bail granted in Criminal Bail Application No. 995 of 2026 to Samadhan Vikram Bhusare, arraigned in Crime No. 320 of 2025 (State Excise Department, Yeola, Dist. Nashik) under Sections 65(a)(e), 81, 83 and 90 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act and Section 123 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, for allegedly transporting duplicate liquor in his car intercepted on 23 November 2025 at about 11.30 p.m. Applicant claimed to be a taxi driver hired by the co-accused and unaware the liquor was duplicate; prosecution alleged knowledge and payment, and risks of absconding/witness tampering. Held: whether the Applicant knew the liquor was duplicate is a matter for trial; noting custody of over five months, absence of antecedents, completed investigation and filed charge-sheet, bail allowed on PR bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount, with conditions against tampering with evidence or influencing prosecution witnesses and attendance at the concerned police station as required; trial to proceed on its own merits, uninfluenced by these observations.

37-BA-995-2026 (CR).doc

N.S.Kamble

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 995 OF 2026

Samadhan Vikram Bhusare ….Applicant VERSUS State Of Maharashtra ….Respondent

Digitally signed NILAM by NILAMSANTOSH SANTOSH KAMBLE KAMBLE Date:2026.04.24 10:07:12 +0530

Mr.Davesh B. Suralkar a/w Mr.Amar Bodke, for the Applicant. Mr.S.M. Mangaonkar, APP for Respondent-State.

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 22^nd APRIL 2026

P.C. :

. By this Application, the Applicant is seeking regular bail in Crime No.320 of 2025 registered with State Excise Department, Yeola, District-Nashik, for the offences punishable under Sections 65(a)(e), 81, 83 and 90 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act and Section 123 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’ for short).

It is prosecution’s case that on 23^rd November 2025 at about 11.30 p.m. on secret information, the police intercepted one car and in the search of the said car police found duplicate liquor was being transported. It is alleged that the said car belongs to the Applicant.

It is contention of learned counsel for the Applicant that the Applicant is taxi driver and the co-accused hired his taxi. He was not aware

Page 1 of 3

37-BA-995-2026 (CR).doc

N.S.Kamble

whether the liquor kept in his car was duplicate. The Applicant is behind bars for more than five months. The Applicant has no antecedents. The investigation is completed and charge-sheet has been filed, and requested to allow the Application.

It is contention of learned APP that Applicant’s the car used for transporting duplicate liquor. The Applicant was aware that the duplicate liquor was being transported from his car. He had received amount for it. If the Applicant released on bail, he may abscond or threaten prosecution witnesses, and requested to reject the Application.

I have heard both learned counsel. Perused charge-sheet and documents produced on record.

The Applicant is behind bars for more than five months. Whether he was aware that the duplicate liquor being transporting from his car or not, is part of the trial. The Applicant has no antecedents. The investigation is completed and charge-sheet has been filed and I pass following order.

ORDER

(i) The Applicant be released on bail in Crime No.320 of 2025 registered with State Excise Department, Yeola, District-

Page 2 of 3

37-BA-995-2026 (CR).doc

N.S.Kamble

Nashik, on furnishing PR bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or

two solvent sureties in the like amount.

(ii) The Applicant shall not tamper with the evidence and/or influence the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) The Trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.

(iv) The Applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station as and when required.

(v) Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

Page 3 of 3