Authority: High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad

Order Date: 30/07/2026

Case Overview

  • Applicant: Ganesbhai Raghunath Indrekhar (appearing through Mr. Sikander Saiyed). Respondent: State of Gujarat (appearing through Ms. Zainab Sikander Saiyed and Ms. Vrunda Shah).
  • Bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) for regular bail after charge‑sheet in CR No.11191011260015 of 2026, registered at DCB Police Station, Ahmedabad.
  • Offences alleged under Sections 8(C), 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.
  • On 17/01/2026 at ~21:30 hrs, Police Inspector D.P. Unadkat, two government panchas and police staff raided the verandah (Osari) of the house of accused No. 1 (applicant’s sister) and recovered 20 Kg 100 g of ganja valued at Rs 10,05,000/‑.
  • Prosecution alleges applicant is the brother of the sister, regularly procured ganja from Nandurbar, and sold it wholesale in the Chharanagar area of Ahmedabad; co‑accused Nos. 2 and 3 (still at large) allegedly delivered the drug.
  • Applicant was arrested on 17/01/2026 and has been in judicial custody for approximately six months.
  • Applicant’s counsel argued lack of direct possession, delay in trial, and that the applicant is falsely implicated; also cited two FIRs.
  • Respondent argued sufficient material, intelligence‑based raid, statements of witnesses, past similar offences, and invoked Section 37 of the NDPS Act (applicable to commercial quantity) to deny bail, citing risk of evidence tampering and flight.
  • Court examined investigation and charge‑sheet papers, reaffirmed that the seized quantity (20 Kg 100 g) is commercial and that Section 37(1)(b)(ii) applies, referencing Supreme Court decisions: State of Meghalaya v. Lalrintluanga Sailo (2024 SCC OnLine (SC) 1751), State of Punjab v. Balraj Singh @ Billa (2026 INSC 618), State of Punjab v. Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora (2026 INSC 401), Union of India v. Nawaz Khan (2021 10 SCC 100), Babua v. State of Orissa, Bhawani Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1991), Mayur Jamanbhai Ajani v. State of Gujarat (SLP (Cri.) No.302/2025), State of Kerala v. Rajesh (Criminal Appeal No.154‑157 of 2020), Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu (2012 (9) SCC 446), CBI v. V. Vijay Sai Reddy (2013) 7 SCC 452.
  • Court emphasized that Section 37 creates a non‑obstante clause limiting the applicability of Cr.P.C. §§437/439, and that “reasonable grounds for believing” the accused is not guilty must be satisfied.
  • Court rejected the applicant’s reliance on trial delay, noting that six months of custody already covered statutory periods and that delay alone cannot override the stringent bail regime for commercial‑quantity NDPS offences.
  • Court observed the applicant’s past antecedents and the likelihood of repeat offence, concluding that bail would jeopardise societal interests.

Final Outcome

  • Bail application dismissed; applicant remains in custody.
  • Learned trial court directed to expedite the trial as early as possible.
  • If co‑accused are absconding, their trials may be separated.
  • If the applicant fails to engage counsel, the trial court shall appoint an advocate through the District Legal Services Authority or Chief Legal Aid Defence Counsel.
  • Court noted that observations in this order are tentative and the trial court must decide the case on its own merits without being influenced by this order.

Topics: NDPS Act, Bail, Drug Trafficking