BA/1183/2026 of MR. SHARUKH KHAN IQBAL KHAN Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR PSO., PS YASHODHARA NAGAR, NAGPUR on 14 October 2026

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.68 of 2026, registered with Police Station Yashodhara Nagar, Nagpur, 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 Assistant Police Inspector Shivaji Nanware, L.C.B., Nagpur City, on 26.01.2026. The informant alleges that while he was on patrolling 2026:BHC-NAG:13935

duty within the jurisdiction of Yashodhara Nagar Police Station, near Konkan Agro Marine Industries Factory, one Eicher Truck bearing No. MH-40-0864, parked in suspicious manner and two person seen in the cabin of the truck. Upon inspection, the person, sitting on the driver seat, told his name Mohammad Shamshad and another person was the applicant, who told his name Shahrukh Khan as a cleaner. After due procedure, police took search of the truck and found Ganja packets weighing 41.394 Kg. The said Ganja was seized by the police in the presence of panch and prepared seizure panchnama. Hence, the FIR.

4. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the cleaner on the truck from where the contraband of 41.394 Kg. was seized by the police. He submits that, on 26.01.2026, police officials of Local Crime Branch, during their patrolling duty, found that one truck was standing, the said truck was searched upon suspicion and during search, it was found that, in the truck, a special compartment was made for carrying contraband and accordingly, 35 packets contraband weighing about 41.394 Kg. was seized. Accordingly, the applicant and the driver of the said truck were arrested. He submits that the applicant would be entitled for bail only on the sole ground that the description in the seizure panchnama, inventory panchnama, in the letter sent by the Investigating Officer to the chemical analyst and the description in the C.A. report varies from each other. Therefore, he submits that, it creates doubt about the seizure of contraband from the spot and sending of the same for chemcial analysis. He invites my attention to the spot panchnama, wherein the description of the contraband is as under. “ट्रकचे कॅबिनची व त्यानंतर ट्रकचे मागील बॉडीची पाहणी केली असता, ट्रकची मागील बाजू ताळपत्रीने झाकली असून, ट्रक बॉडीचे पुढील बाजुस उभे वेगळे कम्पार्टमेंट असून, त्यामध्ये वरील बाजुने पाहिले असता, ब्राउन सेलो टेपने पॅकिंग केलेले पुडके दिसून आले. ते सर्व पुडके स्टाफचे मदतीने बाहेर काढून पाहिले असता, ते एकूण ३५ पुडके आहेत. ते सर्व पुडके पंचांसमक्ष उघडून पाहिले असता, सर्व पुडक्यांमध्ये हिरवट, काळसर, फुले व फळे आलेला, शेंडे संलग्न असलेला, उग्रवास येणार ओलसर पदार्थ दिसून आला.”

5. Learned Counsel for the applicant further invites my attention to the inventory panchnama, wherein, in clause ‘2’ and clause ‘7’, the description of contraband is as under. “ब्राउन सेलो टेपने पॅकिंग केलेले पुडके सर्व पुडक्या मध्ये हिरवट काळसर व फळे आलेला शेंडे संलग्न असलेला उग्रवास येणारा ओलसर पदार्थ गांजा”

6. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that so far as the letter sent to chemical analyst is concerned, it directly refers to Ganja and there is description in the said letter. He lastly invites my attention to the C.A. report, wherein the description is as under.

“Greenish-brownish coloured leaves, flowering tops, seeds and stalks”

7. Learned Counsel for the applicant, therefore, submits that in the inventory panchnama, the missing word is ‘flower’. He further submits that so far as the C.A. report is concerned, all together different substance were shown, wherein seeds and stalks were shown, however, seeds and stalks were absent in the spot panchanama as well as in the inventory panchnama. Therefore, according to him, the samples which were seized by the Investigating Officer from the truck/spot were not same which were sent for chemical analysis. Therefore, it goes to the roots of the matter. Under such circumstances, he submits that it creates doubt about the sending of samples to chemical analysis, which were seized and therefore, the applicant deserves to be granted bail. He relies on the judgment of this Court in the case of Kunal Dattu Kadu Vs. Union of India, [2022 SCC Online Bom 1770].

8. On the other hand, learned APP vehemently opposes the application and submits that the description of the seized substance does match with each other. He submits that the applicant was caught red handed with the contraband. Therefore, it can be said that the contraband was in the conspicuous possession of the applicant and co-accused, wherein the applicant is the cleaner and other accused is a driver. He submits that it appears from the material placed on record that a separate compartment was made in the truck in order to hide the contraband and 35 packets were found weighing 41.394 Kg., whose description is also visible in the spot panchnama. He submits that so far as the inventory panchnama is concerned, though the word ‘flower’ is missing, that by itself is not sufficient to say that the contraband is not the same which has been seized. He submits that, in fact, the certificate issued by the Magistrate under Sub Section 3 of Section 52-A of NDPS Act, certifies that the contraband which was seized is the same. Under such circumstances, the seized substance cannot be doubted. He submits that the C.A. report shows that the samples which were sent by the Investigating Officer for chemical analysis, which were seized in front of the Magistrate i.e. in the sealed packet marked as ‘P1’ ‘P2’ ‘P3’ ‘P4’, were found to be Ganja. He submits that merely some words are missing either from inventory panchnama or some additions in the C.A. report that by itself will not helpful for grant of bail to the applicant. Under such circumstances, he prays for rejection of the application.

9. Upon consideration of the rival submissions and perusal of the relevant material on record, it appears that the seized substance in the spot panchnama was described above. Further, this Court has already reproduced in the above paragraph the description of the contraband, as appearing in the inventory panchnama. Even the substance which was sent for chemical analysis was also reproduced above. Considering all these factors, it appears that there are material discrepancies in the contraband seized on the spot. The spot panchnama specifically mentions the presence of word ‘flower’, whereas conspicuously, it is absent from the inventory panchnama. Further, the C.A. report describes the contraband as comprising seeds and stalks, which is altogether a different description from that recorded in the spot panchnama and inventory panchnama. Thus, these are material discrepancies between the spot panchnama, the inventory panchnama and the C.A. report regarding the nature and description of the seized contraband. Under such circumstances, it would be useful to refer to the order of this Court in the case of Kunal Dattu Kadu (Supra), wherein this Court in para.16 and 28, has specifically observed as under. “16. I do not agree with the observation of the learned senior Judge in the case of Mangilal (supra) that whether fruiting tops were sent or not can be determined during trial. It is the duty of the bureau to be assure of what substance is seized and what is forwarded for analysis as it cannot be left to the guess work of the trial Court.” …

“28. Strangely, the report of analysis refer to the sample which is heterogeneous mixture of flowering and fruiting tops, bits of leaves, steam and stalk alongwith seeds of plant. Necessarily the entire mixture is weighed and found to be 43 Kg. on the basis of which the Applicant is charged for possession and delivering with commercial quantity of Ganja. The discrepancy in what was seized and what was analyzed, prima-facie satisfy me that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the Applicant is not guilty of offences of dealing in commercial quantity and in absence of any antecedent he is not likely to commit any offence on bail.”

10. Upon consideration of the above submissions, though the commercial quantity was seized from the applicant, which would attract the rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act, however, when there are discrepancies which are observed above, under such circumstances, it creates a reasonable doubt for believing that the contraband which was seized from the truck is not same which was sent for chemical analysis. Therefore, considering the exposition of law in the case of Kunal Dattu Kadu (Supra), I am of the considered opinion that the twin condition under Section 37 of NDPS Act would be satisfied and therefore, it could be held that the applicant is not guilty of committing the offence. Since there are no criminal antecedents against the applicant, there is least possibility of committing further crime.

11. Considering the above observations and since the investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed, whereas the applicant is behind bars since 26.01.2026, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant. Hence, the following order.

ORDER

i) The Criminal Application is allowed and disposed of. ii) The applicant/accused viz. Shahrukh Khan Iqbal Khan, be released on bail in connection with Crime No.68 of 2026, registered with Police Station Yashodhara Nagar, Nagpur, for the offences punishable under Sections 8(C), 20(b)(ii)(c), 29 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, on furnishing a P.R. Bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with two sureties in the like amount. iii) The accused shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, as also shall not tamper with the evidence. iv) The accused shall provide his residential address and cell number to concerned Police Station and shall not change his place of residence without prior intimation to the concerned Investigating Officer. v) The applicant/accused shall attend each and every date of trial regularly. If he fails to attend the trial on even a single date or fails to comply with the aforesaid conditions, his default would entail the State to ask for cancellation of bail. vi) Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

12. Needless to mention that the observations of this Court are prima facie in nature and are only limited to this application. The trial Court shall not be influenced by the aforesaid observations.

(M.M. NERLIKAR, J.) asd