17-IA1234-2026INAPEAL353-2026.DOC Santosh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1234 OF 2026 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 353 OF 2026 Ramija Farid Shaikh ...Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra …Respondent Ms. Suvidha Patil, for the Applicant-Appellant. Smt. R. S. Tendulkar, APP for the State. CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATED: 27th AUGUST, 2026 Oral Order:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant. 2. This is an application for suspension of sentence and to enlarge the applicant on bail. 3. By a judgment and order dated 16th March, 2026 in NDPS Special Case No.140/2014, the applicant came to be convicted for an offence punishable under Section 20 read with Section 8(c) of the the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“the NDPS Act”) and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.30,000/- with default stipulation. 1/6 SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Digitally signed by SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Date: 2026.08.31 19:31:50 +0530 17-IA1234-2026INAPEAL353-2026.DOC 4. The gravamen of indictment against the applicant was that on 25th April, 2024 pursuant to secret information, a raid was conducted near a public toilet situated in front of Home Guard Training Institution, N.S.S. Road, Narayan Nagar, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai. The applicant was found moving in suspicious circumstances. The applicant was accosted. The applicant was apprised of her right to be searched in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. Personal search of the applicant was conducted. In the bag, which the applicant was carrying, 9 kg ganja was found. The contraband substance was seized and samples were collected. 5. After appraisal of the evidence, the learned Special Judge was persuaded to return the finding of guilt. The applicant was thus convicted and sentenced, as indicated above. 6. The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that, the proof of seizure of the contraband substance from the possession of the applicant primarily rests on the evidence of the police personnel. The panch witness Chamelidevi Jaituram Gupta (PW7), who allegedly witnessed the search, recovery of the contraband substance and seizure thereof, did not identify the applicant as the person from whose possession the contraband substance was allegedly recovered. The identity of 2/6 17-IA1234-2026INAPEAL353-2026.DOC the applicant as the person who was to arrive at the particular spot also becomes suspect as the panch witness has deposed that, the lady, from whose possession the contraband substance was allegedly recovered, was wearing a burkha. That description is at material variance with the pre-trial panchnama. Thus, the applicant has a good case on merits. 7. Moreover, since the applicant has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and the applicant has been in custody for more than five months, the sentence deserves to be suspended lest the sentence may run out and the appeal may not be finally decided, submitted the learned Counsel for the applicant. 8. The learned APP countered the submissions on behalf of the applicant. Inviting the attention of the Court to the deposition of PW Nos.1 to 6, the learned APP strenuously submitted that, there is overwhelming evidence to sustain the guilt of the applicant. Therefore, the prayer for suspension of sentence does not deserve to be countenanced. 9. I have perused the material on record. Since the applicant was allegedly found in possession of an intermediate quantity of the contraband substance, the interdict contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, does not come into play. From the perusal of 3/6 17-IA1234-2026INAPEAL353-2026.DOC the evidence on record, though the police personnel have fully subscribed to the prosecution version yet the testimony of Chamelidevi Jaituram Gupta (PW7), the public witness, indicates that the question as to whether the contraband substance was recovered from the possession of the applicant may warrant consideration at the stage of final hearing of the appeal. Firstly, Chamelidevi Jaituram Gupta (PW7) did not depose to the fact that the search and seizure were conducted at the spot indicated in the seizure panchnama as deposed to by the rest of the prosecution witnesses. Chamelidevi Jaituram Gupta (PW7) stated that, she was called in a police chowky and the police seized ganja in her presence. Secondly, she expressed her inability to identify the accused as the person from whom the ganja was allegedly seized in her presence as the said lady was wearing a burkha. Thus, the applicant can said to have succeeded in making out a case that the applicant has a fair chance of success in the appeal. 10. At any rate, the sentence of five years can be termed to be a short sentence. The applicant has undergone sentence of almost five months. Having regard to the large pendency of the cases before this Court, it is extremely unlikely that this appeal can be heard and decided finally in the near future. The 4/6 17-IA1234-2026INAPEAL353-2026.DOC applicant is a woman. Thus, in the totality of the circumstances, this Court is inclined to suspend the sentence and enlarge the applicant on bail. 11. Hence, the following order: : O R D E R : (i) The application stands allowed. (ii) The substantive sentence imposed by the learned Special Judge in NDPS Special Case No.140/2014 arising out of CR No.227/2014 registered with Anti Narcotic Cell, Ghatkopar, stands suspended till the final disposal of the appeal. (iii) The applicant, Ramija Farid Shaikh, be enlarged on bail on furnishing a PR Bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- and a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge. (iv) The applicant shall mark her presence at the Anti Narcotic Cell, Ghatkopar, on the first Monday of September and March of every year, till the disposal of the appeal. 5/6 17-IA1234-2026INAPEAL353-2026.DOC (v) The applicant shall furnish her residential address and cell phone number to the Investigating Officer and keep him updated in case of any change therein. (vi) The applicant shall attend the proceedings in this appeal, as and when directed. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.] 6/6