Karansingh Durgasingh Jassol vs. The State Of Maharashtra

BA/1152/2025HC BombayGSTCNR HCBM01014900202509 February 2026Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. NEELA KEDAR GOKHALE7 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The applicant, Karansingh Durgasingh Jassol, sought bail in connection with C.R. No. 19 of 2021, registered on September 24, 2021, with the ATS, Kalachowki, Mumbai, for offences under the NDPS Act and IPC. The prosecution alleges that on September 23, 2021, contraband parcels were found at a post office. The applicant was arrested on November 5, 2024, after being sought by the police for approximately three years. His bail application was rejected by the Special Judge (NDPS). The applicant claims to have been incarcerated for about two years without charges being framed, that no contraband was recovered from his person, and that the recovered contraband is of intermediate quantity. He also argues that proceedings under Section 52A of the NDPS Act were conducted after three years of sample drawing and that there is no evidence linking him to booking the parcels.

Held

The Court granted bail to the applicant. It noted that as of the date of the hearing, charges had not been framed, and the applicant had been in custody since September 11, 2024. The Court also observed that the forensic report for the applicant's mobile phone and other articles was still pending, making a speedy conclusion of the trial unlikely. The quantity of contraband recovered was characterized as intermediate, and the applicant had no prior antecedents. Based on these factors, the Court found it inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. The order specified bail conditions including a PR bond of Rs. 50,000/-, monthly attendance at the police station until charges are framed, attendance at the trial court, not leaving Maharashtra without permission, depositing his passport if any, not leaving India without permission, not tampering with evidence or witnesses, informing the court of his residence and contact details, and cooperating with the trial. The Court clarified that its observations were prima facie and confined to the bail application, leaving the trial judge to decide the case on its merits.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail given the period of incarceration without charges being framed, the quantity of contraband, the absence of recovery from his person, and the delay in Section 52A proceedings, as per the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985? Petitioner's arguments: The applicant contends that he has undergone approximately two years of incarceration without charges being framed. He asserts that no contraband was recovered directly from him, and the quantity seized is intermediate. Furthermore, he highlights that the proceedings under Section 52A of the NDPS Act were initiated more than three years after the samples were drawn. He also argues the lack of CCTV footage or material evidence to prove he booked the parcels. Revenue's arguments: The State submits that the applicant placed orders for significant quantities of controlled substances (Mediploz 10 and Nazpam 2) using his company's (Shreya Distributors) drug and GST licenses, along with his Aadhaar card. They claim the drug license is fake, as reported by the Drug Controller, and that the applicant has not cooperated with the investigation. The State also points out that two fake Aadhaar cards bearing the applicant's photograph but in third-party names were found in his possession upon arrest, indicating the seriousness of the offence.

Sections Cited

Section 52A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

Ajit Pathrikar IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1152 OF 2025 Karansingh Durgasingh Jassol ...Applicant Versus The State Of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr. Ayaz Khan a/w Dilip Mishra, Zehra Charania and Mallika Sharma, for the Applicant. Mr. Mayur Sonavane, APP for the State-Respondent. API – Pankaj Bhopale, ATS, Vikhroli Unit, Mumbai, is present. CORAM DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J. DATED: 9th FEBRUARY 2026 PC:- 1. The Applicant seeks his release on bail in connection with C.R. No. 19 of 2021 dated 24th September 2021 registered with the ATS, Kalachowki, Mumbai for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) and 22(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act’). Thereafter, Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) were also added at the time of filing of the charge-sheet. Page 1 of 7 9th February 2026 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 23rd September 2024, secret information was received by the officials of the ATS, Vikhroli Unit, Mumbai that, two undelivered parcels containing contraband were lying undelivered at the Ghatkopar sub-post office. Panchanama was recorded to that effect on 23rd September 2021 and samples were drawn and contraband was seized as per rules. Accordingly, the FIR was registered on 24th September 2021 and the Applicant was arrested only on 5th November 2024. It is the case of the prosecution that despite being aware that he was wanted by the police, the Applicant kept out of the way to avoid arrest and accordingly, he could not be traced for a period of three years. Only in the year 2024, the Applicant was arrested. 3. The Applicant made an application seeking bail before the Special Judge (NDPS), City Civil and Sessions Court, Greater Bombay. However, by order dated 30th January 2025, Page 2 of 7 9th February 2026 the said application was rejected. Hence, the Applicant is before this Court seeking the relief as prayed. 4. Mr. Ayaz Khan, learned counsel for the Applicant, states that the Applicant has already undergone incarceration of about two years without charges being framed; that no contraband was recovered from the Applicant; and that the contraband recovered from him is of intermediate quantity. Moreover, he submits that the proceedings under Section 52A of the NDPS Act were carried out after three years of samples being drawn. There is neither CCTV footage nor any material to indicate that the Applicant had booked the said parcels. Hence, he prays that the Applicant be enlarged on bail. 5. Per contra, Mr. Mayur Sonavane, learned APP, submits that the Applicant had placed an order of 500 boxes containing 20 strips per box of Mediploz 10 and 500 boxes of Nazpam 2. He submits that the present Applicant, from his mobile number, shared the drug licence of his company namely Shreya Distributors with other documents and GST Page 3 of 7 9th February 2026 licence, including his own Aadhar Card. Subsequently, on various occasions, the Applicant had purchased drugs from the said distributor and made payments. He submits that the Applicant has not co-operated with the investigation and hence, the authenticity of the drug licence of Shreya Distributors could not be ascertained. Mr. Sonavane further submits that the Drug Controller has sent a report stating that the licence is fake. He also submits that when the Applicant was arrested, two fake Aadhar Cards were also found in his custody. The said Aadhar Cards bore his photograph but were in the names of third persons. He thus submits that the offence is serious and the Bail Application be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the record with their assistance. 7. At the very outset, it is admitted fact that as on date, charges are not framed. The Applicant is in custody since 11th September 2024. In fact, the CA report pertaining to his Page 4 of 7 9th February 2026 mobile phone and other articles is yet not received. In these circumstances, it is not likely that the trial will conclude in the near foreseeable future. The quantity of contraband recovered from the Applicant is also of intermediate quantity. There are no antecedents against the present Applicant. 8. In view of the aforesaid, I am inclined to enlarge the Applicant 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.50,000/ 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., till the charges are framed. 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. 9th February 2026

iii) The Applicant shall not leave Maharashtra, without permission of the Trial Court; 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; 9th February 2026

viii) The Applicant to co-operate with the conduct of the trial; ix) Any infraction of the aforesaid conditions shall entail cancellation of bail.

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

10.

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. (Dr. Neela Gokhale, J) 9th February 2026

Reproduced from the public record of the Bombay High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.