Baidabai W/O. Sanjay Jadhav And Other v. The State Of Maharashtra And Another

- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 929 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 412 OF 2024 Baidabai W/o. Sanjay Jadhav & others ....Applicants

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra & another .....Respondents .....

Mr. R. P. Patwardhan, Advocate holding for Mr. S. S. Jadhav, Advocate for the Applicants.

Mr. C. V. Badane, APP for the State.

CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.

DATE : 8th OCTOBER, 2024.

PER COURT :

1.

Applicants apprehend arrest in connection with Crime No. 0285/2023 registered with Paranda Police Station, District Dharashiv, for the offences punishable under Sections 20(B)(II)(A), 8(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and under Sections 4/25 of the Arms Act.

2.

First Information Report indicates that contraband articles were seized from the house owned by Sanjay Jadhav. During the raid conducted in the said house on 25.12.2023, 85 kg ganja was seized. Along with said contraband articles, other articles were also seized including weapons.

- 2 - 3.

Learned counsel for the Applicants submits that the Applicants are ladies and their liberty was protected by order dated 11.03.2024. It is his submission that during the course of investigation, it is brought on record that the Applicants have no concern with the said contraband articles seized. He also submitted that pursuant to the interim protection, the Applicants have attended the concerned police station and co-operated in the investigation. 4.

Learned APP opposed the application considering the seriousness of the crime. However, on instructions from the Investigating Officer, a statement is made that the Applicants have co-operated in the investigation pursuant to the interim relief granted by this Court.

5.

No doubt, apparently, the contraband articles are seized from the house of Sanjay Jadhav. However, prima facie, there is no material on record to indicate that the present Applicants were involved in the said crime. Merely because they were residents of the said house, their participation in the crime cannot be presumed. There is nothing on record to indicate that the Applicants have

- 3 - committed breach of conditions of interim order. Further, in view of the statement made before the court on behalf of the investigating agency, application is allowed in terms of the interim order. ( R. M. JOSHI) Judge dyb