P.H. JAYANI 911 BA1424.2026.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1424 OF 2026 Shoaib Abdul Matin Shaikh @ Chetak …. Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra …Respondent Ms. Puja Yadav i/b. Mr. Sheerat Kamath for the Applicant. Mr. R.M. Pethe, APP for the Respondent – State. CORAM: SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J. DATED : 22nd SEPTEMBER, 2026 P.C. :- 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record. 2. The applicant seeks his release on bail in NDPS Special Case No.373 of 2026 pending before the learned Special Judge, Gr. Mumbai arising out of Cr.No.10/2026 registered with Mankhurd Police Station, Mumbai for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) with 22(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS”) on the report dated 11.01.2026 filed by Shri. Hemant Sampat Divte. 3. The prosecution case is that, on 11.01.2026, at about 18:45 hours, on G.M. Link Road, Mankhurd, the applicant was found in possession of 26 grams of Mephedrone which was supplied to him by the co-accused Khalid Ramzan @ Rolex. Therefore, the aforesaid crime came to be registered. On completion of the investigation, police submitted the charge-sheet. The trial Court declined to release the applicant on bail. Hence, this Application. Page 1 of 4 P.H. JAYANI 911 BA1424.2026.DOC 4. Ms. Yadav, learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that there is violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The contraband allegedly seized from the applicant is of intermediate quantity. The punishment of offence is imprisonment upto 10 years. The applicant is behind bars for almost 9 months. Till date, the charge is not framed. Therefore, he seeks to release the applicant on bail. 5. In response, Mr. Pethe, the learned APP submitted that considering the facts of the case, violation of Section 50 of NDPS Act, cannot be examined at this stage. Although the applicant is found in possession of intermediate quantity, he has one criminal antecedent of similar nature. The bank account statement of the applicant indicates that he was involved in illicit business of the contraband. Therefore, bail may be refused. 6. I have considered these submissions. Insofar as the violation of Section 50 is concerned, Ms. Yadav is right. Because, neither on the notice under Section 50, nor separately, the fact that the applicant had declined to exercise his right of being searched before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate is recorded with Applicant’s signature. 6.1 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajan Kumar Chadha v. State of Himachal Pradesh, reported in 2023 INSC 878, noted that even in cases wherein the suspect waives such right by electing to be searched by the empowered officer, such waiver on the part of the suspect should be reduced into writing by the empowered officer. To put it in other words, even if the suspect says that he would not like to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate and he would be fine if his search is undertaken by the empowered officer, the matter should not rest with just an oral statement of the suspect. The suspect should be P.H. JAYANI 911 BA1424.2026.DOC asked to give it in writing duly signed by him in presence of the empowered officer as well as the other officials of the squad that “I was apprised of my right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate in accordance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, however, I declare on my own free will and volition that I would not like to exercise my right of being searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate and I may be searched by the empowered officer.” This would lend more credence to the compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. 7. Although the applicant has one criminal antecedent, he is on bail in the said case and there is no recovery from him, as submitted by Ms. Yadav. The seized contraband is an intermediate quantity. The applicant is in jail for last 9 months. In the wake of the above, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail but with stringent conditions. Hence, the following Order :- (i) The applicant - Shoaib Abdul Matin Shaikh @ Chetak be released on bail in NDPS Special Case No.373 of 2026 pending before the learned Special Judge, Gr. Mumbai arising out of Cr.No.10/2026 registered with Mankhurd Police Station, on his executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. (ii) The applicant shall mark his attendance at Mankhurd Police Station, Mumbai on 1st and 16th day of every month between 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. till conclusion of the trial. (iii) The applicant shall regularly attend the proceedings before the jurisdictional Court. Page 3 of 4 P.H. JAYANI 911 BA1424.2026.DOC (iv) The applicant shall not indulge in identical activities for which he has been arraigned in this case. (v) The applicant shall not reside and enter in Trombay area for a period of one year except for marking his attendance at Mankhurd Police Station. Ms. Yadav, the learned Counsel, On instructions, stated that the applicant will reside in Thane District for the said period of one year. (vi) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall not directly or indirectly influence the prosecution witnesses to prevent them from deposing against him. (vii) On being released from jail, the applicant shall furnish his contact number and residential address to the Investigating Officer and shall keep him updated in case there is any change. (viii) It is clarified that any observation made in the present Order are for the purpose of deciding the present Bail Application and should not influence the outcome of the trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 8. Bail Application stands disposed of in aforesaid terms. (SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.) PREETI HEERO JAYANI Digitally signed by PREETI HEERO JAYANI Date: 2026.09.24 21:16:51 +0530