Pune Court Grants Bail to Four in Swargate Hookah Case, Finds Custodial Interrogation Unnecessary

Pune, 22nd October 2026: A 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, observing that the alleged incriminating articles had already been seized and custodial interrogation was unnecessary.

Additional Sessions Judge U.P. Kulkarni passed separate orders on October 21, granting anticipatory bail to Harpal Singh B. Gorowada, Pooja Pramod Kamble and Ritesh Bharat Oswal, and regular bail to Subhash Mansingh Giri, a waiter arrested on October 7.

The applications relate to Crime No. 344/2026, registered under Sections 123 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 4A and 21A of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act (COTPA), 2003.
Each accused was granted bail on a personal bond of ₹25,000 with a surety of the same amount, subject to conditions.

The accused were represented by Advocate Siddharth Rathod, assisted by Advocate Shruti Puranik.

Case Followed Raid at Vegan Vibe Hotel
According to the prosecution’s account recorded in the orders, police raided Vegan Vibe hotel at approximately 3.45 pm on October 7, 2026, and allegedly found Giri 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 orders state.

The prosecution alleged that Giri identified Gorowada as the hotel’s owner, Kamble as its manager and Oswal as a partner. It further alleged that the tobacco material was being sold at Gorowada’s instance.

Defence Challenges Applicability of Section 123

Advocate Siddharth Rathod, assisted by Advocate Shruti Puranik, represented accused in bail proceedings.

The defence argued that the accused had been falsely implicated and disputed the applicability of Section 123 of the BNS to the alleged conduct.

For the three anticipatory bail applicants, counsel submitted that the police report contained no specific allegation that they were present during the raid.

The defence also maintained that all alleged incriminating articles had already been seized, nothing remained to be recovered from the applicants, and they were willing to cooperate with the investigation and comply with bail conditions.

In Giri’s application, the defence pointed out that he had been in custody since October 7 and argued that further detention was unnecessary.
The Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the applications, citing the seriousness of the allegations and the incomplete investigation. The prosecution submitted that the accused persons’ call detail records were required and expressed apprehension that they could tamper with prosecution evidence if granted bail.

Court Finds No Further Recovery Necessary
The court observed that a detailed appreciation of evidence was not warranted at the bail stage. However, it was necessary to consider whether the available material disclosed the essential ingredients of the alleged offences and whether custodial interrogation was required.
Noting that the hookah equipment, tobacco and other articles had already been seized, the court stated in the anticipatory bail orders:

“Nothing is required to be recovered and discovered from the accused. Therefore, custodial interrogation of the accused is not necessary.”
In Giri’s case, the judge similarly concluded 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. While considering the previous cases cited against Gorowada, it observed that criminal antecedents alone were not sufficient grounds to reject a bail application.

High Court Ruling Considered
The judge referred to the Bombay High Court’s November 24, 2025 decision in Omkar Ram Jivan Gupta and another v. State of Maharashtra, in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2551/2023.

As described in the sessions court’s orders, the High Court had granted anticipatory bail while noting that the question of whether Section 328 of the Indian Penal Code applied to similar cases was pending before the Supreme Court.

The sessions court noted that Section 328 of the IPC had been replaced by Section 123 of the BNS, which was invoked in the Swargate case.
However, the orders do not conclusively hold that Section 123 is inapplicable to hookah-related cases. The observations were made while deciding the bail applications, not while finally determining the charges.

Weekly Police Attendance Ordered
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 occurs earlier.

They must not directly or indirectly induce, threaten or promise anything to a person acquainted with the case to prevent disclosure of facts to the police or the court. They have also been directed not to engage in similar offences.

The accused and their respective sureties must provide their mobile numbers, current addresses and proof of residence when executing the bonds.

The orders record that the case was at the investigation stage. The bail decisions do not amount to an acquittal or a final determination of the allegations.