BA/1303/2026 of SHAILENDRA S/O RAMLAKHAN GUPTA (IN JAIL) Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR PSO., PS PARDI, NAGPUR ( FIR NO. 380/2025) on 14 October 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO.1303 OF 2026

SHAILENDRA S/O RAMLAKHAN GUPTA

VERSUS

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR PSO., PS PARDI, NAGPUR

Office Notes, Office Memoranda

of Coram, Appearances, Court's

orders or directions and

Registrar's orders

Court's or Judge's orders

Mr. A.K. Bhangde, Advocate for Applicant.

Mr. A.M. Kadukar, APP for Non-Applicant-State.

CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J.

DATED : 14th OCTOBER 2026

PER COURT :-

1.

Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned APP

for the State.

2.

By this application, the applicant is seeking bail in connection with Crime No.380 of 2025, registered with Police Station Pardi, Dist. Nagpur City, for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c), 29 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, “NDPS Act”).

3.

The crime is registered on the basis of a report lodged by Police Hawaldar Rajendra Taklikar, L.C.B., Nagpur, on 18.07.2025.

The informant alleges that one Eicher Truck bearing No. MH-40-B- 6034 was intercepted by the police and upon searching, it was found 2026:BHC-NAG:13896

that the said truck was carrying 106.850 kg Ganja and the said truck was driven by one Taj Mohammad Habib Sheikh and the applicant was the cleaner on the said truck. The contraband seized by the police in the presence of panch, prepared seizure panchanama and arrested the accused persons on 18.07.2025

4.

Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was the cleaner on the truck, wherein hidden cavities were created and in the said cavities, 106.850 Kg. Ganja was found. He submits that the applicant was not having any knowledge about the said Ganja, however, it is the driver who was knowing about everything. He submits that even in the investigation papers, there is nothing to show that the applicant was having knowledge about the fact that there were hidden cavities in the said truck where Ganja was hidden. He invites my attention to the remand report as well as the station diary entries. According to him, perusal of those documents shows that it is only the driver of the said truck, who was involved in the crime. He submits that the applicant is a poor person, who was doing his job on the said truck. There is nothing to show that the applicant was connected with the main accused or any of the accused persons. Under such circumstances, considering the fact that the applicant was arrested on 18.07.2025 and he is in jail since more than one year, therefore, the applicant deserves to be granted bail.

5.

On the other hand, learned APP vehemently opposes the application and submits that it cannot be contended that the applicant was not having knowledge, since he was travelling from Nagpur to Sambhalpur (State of Odisha) along with the driver of the truck. He submits that though the applicant was not taken to Odisha for the search of other accused persons, that by itself is not sufficient as it is the choice of the Investigating Officer to decide whom to take for the purpose of investigation. He submits that there is also a presumption of mental state of the accused. According to him, it is a presumption of knowledge. Under such circumstances, it will come into play. He submits that this Court has already shown disinclination so far as the bail of the driver of the said truck is concerned and accordingly, the said application was withdrawn by the driver. Under such circumstances, same analogy would be applicable to the present applicant also and therefore, the applicant does not deserve to be granted bail

6.

Upon consideration of the submissions of both the sides and upon perusal of the material placed on record, though the applicant appears to be cleaner of the truck, however, from the entire material, it appears that there is nothing to show so far as the connection of the applicant with the main accused or other accused persons. Neither any call report between the applicant and the main

accused or other accused persons from the Odisha have been placed on record. Though Section 35 of NDPS Act deals with the presumption of culpable mental state, there must be at least some material in the investigation papers to attribute knowledge to the applicant. Merely because the applicant had travelled along with the driver, that by itself is not sufficient to infer that the applicant had knowledge about the contraband in the truck. It appears that when the truck was inspected by the police officials, it was the driver who had opened the said hidden cavities in which the contraband was concealed. Under such circumstances, in my opinion, the twin condition of Section 37 of NDPS Act stands satisfied since there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is not guilty of the offence. Since there are no criminal antecedents against the applicant, there is least possibility of committing further crime and therefore, considering the nature of the allegations and the role attributed to the applicant, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant. Hence, the following order.