Bombay High Court
Wenceslaus Subash Iyer vs The Union Of India And Anr on 9 February, 2026
2026:BHC-AS:6783 34-BA-877-2025.DOC
Ajit Pathrikar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 877 OF 2025
Wenceslaus Subash Iyer ...Applicant
Versus
The Union Of India And Anr. ...Respondents
Mr. Amol M. Thombre a/w Vishal S. Sarode and Akash
Kothimbire, for the Applicant.
Mr. Rushikesh Munde, SPP a/w Shatabdi Netke, for
Respondent No.1.
Ms. Poonam P. Bhosale, APP for the State-Respondent No.2.
CORAM DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.
DATED: 9th FEBRUARY 2026
PC:-
1. The Applicant seeks his release on bail in connection
with File No. SD/INT/AIU/494/2023-AP 'A' dated 2nd July
2023 registered with the Air Intelligence Unit, Mumbai for the
offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 21(c), 23(c), 22(c),
28 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985 ("NDPS Act").
2. There is only one accused in the present matter. The
Applicant was fount to be in possession of 1859 grams of
Page 1 of 5
th
9 February 2026
::: Uploaded on - 10/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/02/2026 20:32:43 :::
34-BA-877-2025.DOC
Cocaine from his bag. Hence, the Applicant was arrested on
2nd July 2023.
3. Without going into the merits of the case, Mr. Amol
Thombre, learned counsel for the Applicant, submits that the
charges were framed on 4th July 2025 and till date, for a
period of almost eight months, the prosecution has not
completed the compliance of Section 294 of the Cr.P.C. He has
placed on record the roznama/case status of the criminal case
pending before the Sessions Court. I have perused the said
roznama. It appears that on each and every occasion, the
counsel for the accused has remained present. However,
despite repeated requests and directions by the Trial Court to
the prosecution to comply with the provisions of Section 294
of the Cr.P.C., the prosecution has not taken any steps to
comply with the said provisions.
4. In these circumstances, the Applicant is condemned to
long incarceration without recording of evidence having
commenced. On this ground alone, the delay caused by the
Page 2 of 5
th
9 February 2026
::: Uploaded on - 10/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/02/2026 20:32:43 :::
34-BA-877-2025.DOC
prosecution is not justified. The Apex court, in a series of its
decisions has observed, that failure to conclude the trial
within a reasonable time resulting in prolonged incarceration
militates against the precious fundamental right guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and as such
conditional liberty overriding the statutory embargo created
under Section 37 of the NDPS Act may in such circumstances
be considered.
5. In view of the above, I am inclined to enlarge the
Applicant on bail and it is ordered as under:
ORDER
i) The Applicant be enlarged on bail, on executing PR Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/ with one or two local sureties in the like amount;
ii) The Applicant shall attend the Trial Court concerned on each and every date as directed, till the conclusion of the trial, save and except if the Applicant is exempted from appearance by orders of the Trial Court.
Page 3 of 5
th 9 February 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 10/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/02/2026 20:32:43 ::: 34-BA-877-2025.DOC
iii) If the Applicant has not deposited his passport, the Applicant shall deposit the same with the concerned Police Station, if any;
iv) The Applicant shall not leave India, without permission of the trial Court;
v) The Applicant shall not tamper or attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case;
vi) The Applicant shall inform his latest place of residence and mobile contact number immediately after being released and / or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from time to time to the Court seized of the matter and to the Investigating Officer of the concerned Police Station;
vii) The Applicant to co-operate with the conduct of the trial;
Page 4 of 5
th 9 February 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 10/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/02/2026 20:32:43 ::: 34-BA-877-2025.DOC
viii) Any infraction of the aforesaid conditions shall entail cancellation of bail.
6. Application is allowed in the above terms and is accordingly disposed of.
7. It is made clear that the observations made herein are prima facie and are confined to this Application and the Trial Judge to decide the case on its own merits, uninfluenced by the observations made herein.
(Dr. Neela Gokhale, J) Page 5 of 5 th 9 February 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 10/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/02/2026 20:32:43 :::