1.BA.3393.2026.doc Ajay IN IN THE THE HIGH HIGH COURT COURT OF OF JUDICATURE JUDICATURE AT AT BOMBAY BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3393 OF 2026 Megha Deepak Jagtap .. Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra .. Respondent ....................  Mr. Vaibhav Ugle a/w. Prashant Mahajan, Advocates for Applicant.  Mr. Sukanta Karmakar, APP for Respondent – State.  PI - Mr. S.S. Chavan (ANTF Pune). ......…........... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 30, 2026. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Ugle, learned Advocate for Applicant and Mr. Karmakar, learned APP for Respondent – State. 2. Present Application is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by Applicant in connection with C.R. No.916 of 2025 and chargesheet No.209 of 2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(a), 22(c) and 29 of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’). 3. Case of prosecution is that Applicant was apprehended and found in possession of alleged contraband MD and that Applicant is a retail supplier of the contraband. Applicant is working as RTO agent and she was arrested on 29.10.2025. Bail Application of Applicant was 1 of 8 1.BA.3393.2026.doc rejected by the Trial Court on 08.07.2026. 4. Mr. Ugle, learned Advocate for Applicant argued that Applicant is seeking bail essentially on the ground of non - compliance of the provisions of Section 50(1) of NDPS Act, 1985. He has drawn my attention to the Notice issued under Section 50, copy of which is appended at page No.56 and 57, and would contend that the Police Inspector who issued the notice to Applicant has identified herself as a Gazetted Officer and offered to search Applicant herself or in the alternate Applicant could subject herself to search through another Gazetted Officer. He would submit that such conduct by the Investigating Officer or raiding party oficer to identify oneself as a Gazetted Officer to undertake the search is contrary to law. 5. Mr. Karmakar, learned APP would submit that Applicant was found in possession of 54 grams and 55 milligrams of MD drugs and 5 grams 53 miligrans of MD as well as 40 grams and 29 miligrans of Ganja in her house. He would submit that Applicant along with Accused No.2 sold the contraband which was procured from Accused No.3. The Notice dated 28.10.2025 is reproduced hereunder for reference. The acknowledgment of Applicant is also reproduced thereunder:- 2 of 8 1.BA.3393.2026.doc 3 of 8 1.BA.3393.2026.doc 6. I have perused the record with the able assistance of the learned Advocates and APP at the bar. 4 of 8 1.BA.3393.2026.doc 7. Section 50 of the NDPS Act reads thus:- “50. Conditions under which search of persons shall be conducted.— (1) When any officer duly authorised under section 42 is about to search any person under the provisions of section 41, section 42 or section 43, he shall, if such person so requires, take such person without unnecessary delay to the nearest Gazette Officer of any of the departments mentioned in section 42 or to the nearest Magistrate. (2) If such requisition is made, the officer may detain the person until he can bring him before the Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate referred to in subsection (1). (3) The Gazette Officer or the Magistrate before whom any such person is brought shall, if he sees no reasonable ground for search, forthwith discharge the person but otherwise shall direct that search be made. (4) No female shall be searched by anyone excepting a female. (5) When an officer duly authorised under section 42 has reason to believe that it is not possible to take the person to be searched to the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate without the possibility of the person to be searched parting with possession of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, or controlled substance or article or document, he may, instead of taking such person to the nearest Gazette Officer or Magistrate, proceed to search the person as provided under section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974). (6) After a search is conducted under sub-section (5), the officer shall record the reasons for such belief which necessitated such search and within seventy-two hours send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior.” 8. Perusal of the impugned notice reproduced above prima facie discloses that Police Inspector Sarojini Chauhan has herself at the inception informed Applicant that she could subject herself to search by the Police Inspector or if Applicant would like to have herself searched by the nearest Magistrate / Gazetted Officer, then such arrangement can be made. Therefore by implication, Police Inspector 5 of 8 1.BA.3393.2026.doc Sarojini Chauhan has portrayed herself to be a Gazetted Officer for undertaking search. It is such an act of the Police Inspector that prima facie amounts to a breach of Section 50(1) of NDPS Act, 1985. Attention is drawn to a decision of this Court in the case of Shaikh Majhar Shaikh Anwar vs. The State of Maharashtra1 which covers the facts of the present case. Paragraph No.11 is reproduced hereunder for reference:- “11. In the case of Ashok Muktinath Pande2, this Court in an identical situation in paragraph 3 has observed as follows: "3) A bare perusal of the first information report discloses that when the Police Inspector Shri Jagtap at the inception itself informed the applicant that he himself is a Gazetted Officer, the provisions of Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act have been clearly breached. The said alleged appraisal under Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act is contrary to the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Parmanand and anr. reported in (2014) 5 SCC 345 and in the case of Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No.4590 of 2015 (Gurnam Singh @ Gagan vs. State of Punjab). the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dharmaveer Lekhram Sharma Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2001(5) BCR (Cri.) 9 has also held in the similar manner. This Court in Bail Application No. 1145/2015 in the case of Afaque Asif Sayyed Vs. State of Maharashtra by following the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court and the Division Bench of this Court has observed that the moment the Police Officer informs the applicant that he himself is the Gazetted Officer, and then apprises the accused with his right to be searched by other Gazetted Office of Magistrate, the provisions of Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act are violated. In view of the above, the applicant has made out a case to be released.” 9. Further, case of Applicant is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Chandrabhan Janardhan Yadav Vs. Station of 1 Criminal Bail Application No.3128 of 2025 decided on 08th August 2025 2 Bail Application No.2105 of 2015 Decided on 08.02.2016. 6 of 8 1.BA.3393.2026.doc Maharashtra3 and Ashok Muktinath Pande vs. State of Maharashtra4. 10. Hence, in view of above prima facie observations and findings and breach of provisions of Section 50(1) of NDPS Act, Bail Application of Applicant is allowed subject to the following terms and conditions:- (i) Applicant is directed to be released from prison in connection with C.R. No.916 of 2025 and Chargesheet No.209 of 2026; (ii) Applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- each with one or two sureties of the like amount; (iii) Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer at the concerned Police Station once every month, on the first Monday of the month between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. until commencement of trial and thereafter shall attend all dates of hearing before the Trial Court; (iv) Applicant shall cooperate with the conduct of the trial and remain present before the Trial Court on all dates, unless specifically exempted. Applicants shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. Any such conduct shall entitle the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail; 3 Criminal Bail Application No.2254 of 2024 decided on 04th March 2025 4 Bail Application No.2105 of 2015 decided on 08th February 2016 7 of 8 1.BA.3393.2026.doc (v) Applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Trial Court; (vi) Applicant shall not influence any of the witnesses or tamper with the evidence in any manner; (vii) Applicant shall keep the Investigating Officer informed of their respective current residential address and mobile telephone numbers and shall forthwith inform the Investigating Officer of any change in their residential addresses or mobile telephone numbers, as and when such change occurs; and (viii)Any breach or infraction of any of the aforesaid conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail granted to the Applicants. 11. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are limited for the purpose of granting bail only and I have not made any observations on merits of the case. The trial shall be adjudicated on the strength of the evidence led and strictly on its own merits being uninfluenced with any of the prima facie observations made hereinabove in this order. 12. Bail Application is allowed and disposed. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] Ajay 8 of 8 AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE Digitally signed by AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.09.30 11:45:07 +0530