Bombay High Court
Premdas Pandurang Pawar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 18 February, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:7275
1 921-BA-1651-25.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1651 OF 2025
PREMDAS PANDURANG PAWAR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Abhaykumar D. Ostwal
APP for Respondent : Mr. D. B. Bhange
...
CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 18-02-2026
PER COURT:-
1. The applicant has approached this Court seeking regular bail
in connection with Crime No.0394 of 2024, dated 12.11.2024
registered with Renapur Police Station, Latur, for the offence
punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The arrest of the applicant was
effected on 12.11.2024. Upon completion of the investigation, the
chargesheet is also filed.
2. The prosecution's case is that on 11.11.2024 at 10.00 a.m.
the complainant/A.P.I. Crime Branch Latur received a confidential
tip that the applicant was illegally cultivating cannabis plants for
financial gain in his farm. The police authorities immediately
responded to the information and conducted a raid on the
specified location. Upon arriving at the scene, police confronted
the applicant and inquired about permission for the said
cultivation. The police then proceeded to uproot and seize the
2 921-BA-1651-25.odt
illegal crop. A total of 130 green, wet cannabis plants were
inventoried, complete with roots, weighing a collective 358.71
kilograms. Subsequently, the samples were taken and sent for
chemical analysis. The cannabis plants ranging 3 to 5 feet in
height, valued at approximately Rs.53,80,650/-, was recovered
from the applicant's possession. Accordingly, report came to be
lodged.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
applicant is falsely implicated and challenges the validity of the
seizure. It is further submitted that the police have inflated the
total weight by seizing all 130 plants with the accompanying soil,
roots, leaves, and branches. Under Section 2(iii)(b) of the NDPS
Act, "flowering and fruiting tops" are essential to classify material
as 'ganja', which these plants allegedly lacked. Furthermore, the
raid was conducted without following the due procedure, as police
have uprooted the alleged plants from the sugarcane farm, raising
doubts about the identification of the seized material. Hence,
prayed to allow the application.
4. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the application and submitted
that huge quantity of Ganja plants seized from the field in
possession of the applicant. The seized contraband 358.71
kilograms is of commercial quantity. As such, there is prima facie
complicity of the applicant and prayed to reject the application.
3 921-BA-1651-25.odt
5. Upon considering the submissions of both sides and perusing
the material on record, including the charge-sheet, indicates that
the applicant is an agriculturalist who allegedly planted the alleged
contraband alongside a sugarcane crop. The commercial quantity
in relation to the NDPS Act is considered to be 20 kg or above.
However, the expression 'ganja' specifically defines in Section 2(b)
and (c) as the flowering and fruiting tops of the cannabis plant
(excluding the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the
tops), by whatever name they may be known or designated, and
any mixture, with or without any neutral material, of any of the
above forms of cannabis or any drink prepared therefrom.
6. The expression 'ganja' makes it abundantly clear that it
refers specifically to the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis
plant, excluding the seeds and leaves when they are not
accompanied by the tops.
7. In the present case, as is evident from the First Information
Report (FIR), the seizure weighed 358.71 kilograms, which
comprised the entire cannabis plants along with all other parts.
There is no separate record available to indicate the specific
quantity of only the flowering and fruiting tops, the precise
components that legally constitute 'ganja' as defined under the Act
(excluding seeds and leaves).
4 921-BA-1651-25.odt
8. Therefore, at this juncture, prima facie, it remains doubtful
whether the alleged offense falls under Section 20(b) of the NDPS
Act. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, and in the absence of
a distinct record quantifying solely the possession of the flowering
tops, it is highly questionable whether the total quantity seized
can reliably be regarded as exceeding the commercial quantity
threshold.
9. In case of Laxman Shankar Ghankute Vs. State of
Maharashtra (Criminal Bail Application No. 2583 of 2019),
this Court on 23.06.2021 observed that because the seizure
consisted of whole plants without a specific quantification of
flowering tops, there was doubt as to whether the weight could be
classified as "commercial quantity".
10. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the request of the applicant
warrants consideration. Accordingly, the following order :-
ORDER
(i) The bail application is allowed.
(ii) Applicant, Premdas Pandurang Pawar, be released on regular
bail on furnishing P.R. bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs.Fifty
Thousand) with one or two local solvent sureties in the like
amount, in connection with Crime No.0394 of 2024, dated
12.11.2024 registered with Renapur Police Station, Latur, for
the offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic
5 921-BA-1651-25.odt
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, on the
following conditions :-
(a) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted
with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from
disclosing such facts either to the Court or to any Police
Officer.
(b) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence in any manner and shall cooperate the learned
Trial Judge in expeditious disposal of the trial against him.
(c) The applicant shall not indulge in similar type of offences
in future.
(d) In case of breach of any of the conditions by the
applicant, it is open for the Prosecution to move this
Court seeking cancellation of bail.
(iii) Needless to states that the observations rendered herein
are to the extent of this application and the trial court shall
not be influenced by the same.
[SACHIN S. DESHMUKH]
JUDGE
rrd
