High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail to Accused in Prohibited Substances Case - Need for Detailed Investigation

In a recent order , the High Court of Judicature at Bombay has denied anticipatory bail to Prashant Dhanpal Gandhi, the applicant in the case of C.R. No.94 of 2023. The case, registered at Loni-Kalbhor Police Station, Taluka Haveli, District Pune, involves serious offenses under Sections 188, 272, 273, and 328 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with sections of the Food and Safety Standards Act, 2006, and the Prohibition and Registration of Sales Rules, 2011.

Justice Amit Borkar, presiding over the matter, rejected the application for pre-arrest protection on July 19, 2023, citing the need for a thorough investigation into the allegations. The applicant was apprehending arrest after prohibited substances were seized from a co-accused, who allegedly named Prashant Dhanpal Gandhi as being involved in the supply of banned substances.

During the hearing, Mr. Prashant S. Hagare, representing the applicant, argued that his client had not been named in the First Information Report (FIR) and claimed that he was falsely implicated in the case. Additionally, Mr. Hagare maintained that there was no evidence to suggest that the applicant had administered the contraband substances and emphasized his willingness to cooperate with the investigation.

On the other hand, Mrs. Rutuja Ambekar, the Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State of Maharashtra, opposed the anticipatory bail application. She asserted that the applicant had a history of criminal antecedents and was allegedly involved in the business of supplying prohibited substances.

Justice Amit Borkar, in his ruling, considered the gravity of the allegations and the necessity for a comprehensive investigation to unearth any potential substance-related racket. The Court emphasized the importance of identifying the purchasers and the source of the banned substances. Based on the applicant’s criminal antecedents and similar cases in the past, the Court concluded that pre-arrest protection could not be granted.

In a similar vein, the Court referred to previous cases where anticipatory bail was denied to individuals facing charges related to the supply of banned substances. Notably, in the case of Ankush v. State, the Court observed that “Gutka and Pan Masala are seriously detrimental to health and are a major cause of oral cancer,” justifying stringent measures against those involved in their supply.

Date of Decision: July 19, 2023

Prashant Dhanpal Gandhi   VS  The State of Maharashtra