MANOJ 903-BA-2554-2026.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.2554 OF 2026 Salman Izhar Shaikh …Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra …Respondent Mr. Dilip Mishra a/w Adv. Ayaz Khan, Adv. Zehra Charania & Adv. Mallika Sharma, for the Applicant. Mr. Vinod Chate, APP for the Respondent-State. Mr. Madhukar L. Moule, API, Shivaji Nagar police Station, present. CORAM: SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J. DATED : 24th SEPTEMBER, 2026 P.C. :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record. 2. Applicant seeks his release on bail in Special Case No.2387 of 2025, pending before the learned Special Judge, NDPS Court, City Civil & Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai. Said case arising out of Cr.No.335 of 2025 registered with Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Mumbai, for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b), 22(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”), on the Report dated 14th May, 2025 filed by Mr. Sanket Raut, Police Constable. 3. The prosecution case is that on 13th May 2025, at about 20.10 hours, Mr. Deshmukh, Police Inspector told to the informant Mr. Sanket Raut, Police Constable and other police officials with him that Mr.Khandare, API, received a secret information from his source that the applicant and his two co-accused have been dealing in illicit contraband namely MD and ganja from their room at Shivaji Nagar, Raza Chowk, Govandi, Mumbai and they were selling WAKLE MANOJ JANARDHAN Digitally signed by WAKLE MANOJ JANARDHAN Date: 2026.09.28 16:32:33 +0530 MANOJ 903-BA-2554-2026.DOC the same. Therefore, the police team headed by Mr.Pawar, Police Inspector effected the raid at the said place in the presence of the panchas. However, A2 and A3 fled from the said room by breaking open the roof. The applicant was found present there. He was holding a bag. The said bag was searched in the presence of two panchas. It found containing 3.78 kg. of MD, 12 kg. of ganja and 36 bottles of Codeine Based Cough Syrup. Said contraband was seized, and a detailed panchanama was recorded. Thereafter, Mr. Sanket Raut lodged a report which led to registration of this crime, arrest of the applicant, inventory proceedings and filing of the charge-sheet. Thereafter, the applicant filed two successive bail applications before the Trial Court, both of which came to be rejected. 4. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, mainly, sought for bail on the grounds of non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. 5. Opposing the said submissions, Mr. Chate, the learned APP submitted that the applicant was found in possession of commercial quantity of the contraband MD, Codeine Phosphate based cough syrup bottles and intermediate quantity of ganja. All the provisions of the NDPS Act were properly complied with before and after effecting the raid. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 6. I have considered these submissions. Admittedly, the secret information regarding the dealing in illicit contraband substances was received by Mr. Khandare, API. However, the said information was not recorded separately by him. Therefore, question of sending its copy to the immediate superior officer does not arise. Both are legal requirements as provided in sub-Section (1) and (2) of Section 42 of the NDPS Act. If these provisions are not followed, there is every room to doubt the search and seizure. Page 2 of 4 MANOJ 903-BA-2554-2026.DOC The object of Section 42 NDPS Act is to provide a legal framework for the entry, search, seizure and arrest of an individual without a warrant or authorisation in cases of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances and controlled substances. This provision is designated to prevent the destruction of evidence and enable swift action in drugs related offences. The Section aims to balance the need for enforcement with the protection of the civil liberties by imposing mandatory procedural safeguards. In the case in hand, prima facie it appears that the said balance is completely ignored. 7. As per the record, the samples to be taken to the office of the C.A. were removed from the ANC godown on 24th September, 2025. The same were deposited in the office of the C.A. on 31st October, 2025. However, surprisingly, the statement of the police carrier is recorded on 21st May, 2025 that he had carried the samples to the CA on 31st October, 2025. There is an interpolation in the date written on the forwarding letter to the CA. As per the statement of the carrier, he had carried the samples marked Exh. “A” to Exh. “H”, respectively. Whereas, the forwarding letter mentions that the samples were marked Exh. “A-1” to Exh. “H-1”, respectively. Therefore, it is also not clear as to which samples were carried by the carrier. These facts create doubt about carrying the same samples to the office of the C.A. 8. In view thereof, the applicant has shown that the first condition of Section 37 of NDPS Act is met. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. He is not likely to commit the similar offence. Therefore, he is entitled for bail. Hence, Order:- (i) Applicant – Salman Izhar Shaikh shall be released on bail in Special Case No.2387 of 2025, pending before the learned Special Judge, NDPS Court, City Civil & Sessions MANOJ 903-BA-2554-2026.DOC Court, Greater Mumbai arising out of Cr.No.335 of 2025 registered with Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Mumbai, on his furnishing 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 Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Mumbai, on the 1st day of month between 12:00 noon to 4:00 p.m., till the conclusion of the trial. (iii) The applicant shall regularly attend the proceedings before the jurisdictional Court unless exempted by the said Court, for the reasons to be recorded in writing. (iv) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall not influence upon the prosecution witness to prevent them from deposing against him. (v) On being released from jail, the applicant shall furnish his contact number and residential address to Investigation Officer and, keep him updated, if there is any change. (vi) The applicant shall not indulge in identical activities for which he has been arraigned in this case. (vii) 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. 9. Application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)