Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction

Order Date: September 7, 2026

Case Overview

  • Bail applications filed: BA-1621/2025 (Chandra Mani Matamani Tiwari), BA-1779/2025 (Kamal Jayramdas Jeswani, Accused No.1), BA-2738/2026 (Mateen Babu Shaikh, Accused No.2), BA-4352/2025 (unnamed applicant, Accused No.4 & No.5).
  • All applications were heard together under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking bail in connection with C.R. No. 364 of 2023 registered at Khopoli Police Station, Raigad.
  • The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 8(c), 22(c), 23 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).
  • Prosecution’s case stems from a raid on premises of Vighnaharta Logistics (belonging to Accused No.1) where contraband initially described as MD was later identified as Ketamine.
  • Accused No.1 is alleged to have manufactured contraband with assistance from co‑accused who supplied raw materials; he contends pressure from investigators and cites non‑compliance with Sections 42(1) and 42(2) of the NDPS Act.
  • Witness statements (pages 171‑173) detail business relationships, factory setup, invoices, and money transfers; they indicate Vighnaharta Logistics engages in import‑export of chemicals.
  • The court found the witness statements do not constitute a watertight case against Accused No.1 at the preliminary stage.
  • Accused No.2 is described as the manager of the firm of Accused No.1 (also operating as Aanchal Chemicals) and the court noted no direct incriminating role.
  • Accused No.4 is alleged to be an intermediary between a Custom House Clearing Agent and Accused No.3; no specific incriminating evidence was presented.
  • Accused No.5 is a commission agent; the only reference is a witness statement (page 172) linking goods stored in his godown to Accused No.1. The goods were not forensically examined, and no CA report confirms their use in contraband manufacture.
  • Money transfers cited (page 173) are backed by invoices and work orders, are ordinary bank transfers, and not of high denomination; the court sees no basis to treat them as illicit.
  • No forensic examination of recovered chemicals was conducted, and no money trail directly links the accused to drug‑related activity.

Final Outcome

  • The High Court granted bail to all four applicants with the following conditions:

1. Immediate release from prison in connection with C.R. No. 364/2023.

2. Furnishing of a personal bond of Rs 50,000 each, with one or two sureties of equal amount.

3. Monthly reporting to the investigating officer on the first Monday of each month between 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m.

4. Cooperation with the trial, attendance on all dates, and avoidance of unnecessary adjournments (failure may allow prosecution to seek revocation).

5. No travel abroad without prior permission of the Trial Court; passports to be deposited with the Trial Court within one week of release.

6. No influencing of witnesses or tampering with evidence.

7. Obligation to keep the investigating officer informed of current address and mobile number, and any changes thereof.

8. Any breach of the above conditions will result in cancellation of bail.

  • The order notes that these observations are prima facie and do not impede the trial.

Topics: Criminal Law, Bail