The Pune sessions court has granted anticipatory bail to three accused and regular bail to a fourth in an alleged illegal hookah operation case registered at Swargate police station, holding that the equipment and tobacco material had already been seized and custodial interrogation was unnecessary.
Additional Sessions Judge U.P. Kulkarni passed separate orders on October 21 in connection with Crime No. 344/2026. Harpal Singh B. Gorowada, Pooja Pramod Kamble and Ritesh Bharat Oswal were granted anticipatory bail, while Subhash Mansingh Giri, a waiter arrested on October 7, was granted regular bail.
The case has been registered under Sections 123 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 4A and 21A of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003. Each accused was directed to execute a personal bond of ₹25,000 with a surety for the same amount.
According to the prosecution’s account recorded in the court orders, police raided Vegan Vibe hotel at about 3.45 pm on October 7. Giri was allegedly found supplying tobacco material for hookah smoking to customers. Police seized seven glass hookah pots, six pipes, five chillums, a tin containing flavoured tobacco and other articles, the report said.
The prosecution further alleged that Giri identified Gorowada as the hotel owner, Kamble as its manager and Oswal as a partner, and that the tobacco material was being sold at Gorowada’s instance. The defence disputed the allegations and questioned the applicability of Section 123 of the BNS to the alleged conduct.
For the three anticipatory bail applicants, the defence argued that there was no specific allegation that they were present during the raid. Their lawyers also submitted that the alleged incriminating articles had already been seized, no further recovery was required and the applicants were willing to cooperate with the investigation and comply with any conditions imposed by the court.
In Giri’s case, the defence argued that he had remained in custody since October 7 and that continued detention was unnecessary. The prosecution opposed the applications, citing the seriousness of the allegations, the incomplete investigation and the need to obtain call detail records. It also expressed apprehension that the accused could tamper with evidence.
The court stated that a detailed assessment of evidence was not required at the bail stage. It nevertheless considered whether the available material disclosed the essential ingredients of the alleged offences and whether custodial interrogation was necessary. In the anticipatory bail orders, the court observed, “Nothing is required to be recovered and discovered from the accused. Therefore, custodial interrogation of the accused is not necessary.”
The judge reached a similar conclusion in Giri’s case, observing that further custodial interrogation was unnecessary and that no purpose would be served by keeping him in jail. The court recorded that Kamble, Oswal and Giri had no criminal antecedents. Regarding previous cases cited against Gorowada, it observed that criminal antecedents alone were not sufficient grounds to reject a bail application.
The sessions court also referred to a November 24, 2025 decision of the Bombay High Court in Omkar Ram Jivan Gupta and another v. State of Maharashtra. As described in the orders, that case involved the applicability of Section 328 of the Indian Penal Code to similar conduct. The sessions court noted that Section 328 had since been replaced by Section 123 of the BNS, which was invoked in the Swargate case.
The orders do not finally determine whether Section 123 applies to hookah-related cases. The observations were made while deciding the bail applications and do not amount to an acquittal or a final finding on the allegations.
All four accused have been directed to attend Swargate police station every Monday between 11 am and 2 pm until the chargesheet is filed or a further court order is passed, whichever comes first. They have also been directed not to induce, threaten or promise anything to people acquainted with the case, not to interfere with the investigation and not to engage in similar offences.
The accused and their sureties must provide mobile numbers, current addresses and proof of residence while executing the bonds. The case remains at the investigation stage, according to the court orders.
