P.H. JAYANI 907 BA1200 WITH 1209.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1200 OF 2026 Shahabaz Shamim Khan ….Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra .…Respondent WITH BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1209 OF 2026 Abubakr Mehandi Hasan Khan ….Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra .…Respondent Ms. Shaikh Afreen a/w. Ms. Nikhat Shaikh for the applicant. Ms. Veera Shinde, APP for the Respondent - State. CORAM: SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J. DATED : 3rd SEPTEMBER, 2026 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record. 2. The applicants seek their release on bail in NDPS Special Case No.2656/2025 pending on the file of learned NDPS Special Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court, Gr. Bombay arising out of Cr.No.559/2025 registered with Wadala T.T. Police Station, Mumbai for the offence punishable under Sections 8 (c), 20 (b)(ii) (C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act’) on the Report dated 22.08.2025 filed by Mr. Gopichand Nerkar, API. 3. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 22.08.2025 at about 14:40 hours, the informant was patrolling on his private bike within his jurisdictional area. When he arrived at Wadala P.H. JAYANI 907 BA1200 WITH 1209.DOC Depot Monorail Station, a white colour Maruti Wagonr Car bearing registration No.MH-01-EE-3013 was standing there and the applicants were seated in the car. On inquiry, the applicants gave evasive replies. Therefore, the informant called Mr. Madhavendra Yewale, PSI at the spot. Thereafter Mr. Yewale arrived there and inquired with the applicants. During search of the car, Mr. Yewale found two bags on the rear seat. Each containing 25 packets of Ganja. Therefore, PHC was called along with other police, two panchas and sealing material i.e., weighing machine etc. Thereafter, the Ganja found in two bags was separately weighed. One bag was containing total 25.760 kgs of Ganja and another was found containing total 25.740 kgs. Then, the said Ganja was seized and a detailed panchanama was recorded. It was followed by lodging of the Report by the informant, leading to registration of the aforesaid crime and arrest of the applicants. Police submitted the charge-sheet. The trial Court declined to release the applicants on bail. Hence, these applications. 4. Ms. Shaikh, learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that as per the record, the police had received a prior secret information about the Ganja. However, said information was not processed as required under Section 42 of the NDPS Act. No mobile phones of the applicants were seized to show that they had travelled from a particular place carrying Ganja up-to the spot, where they were apprehended. Even the statement of the owner of the said car is not recorded to ascertain whether he had given the car to the applicants. All this create doubt about the veracity of prosecution case. Additionally, Ms. Shaikh submitted that the samples of the Ganja were not drawn as required in law. The P.H. JAYANI 907 BA1200 WITH 1209.DOC Report of the C.A. is yet not filed in the case. Therefore, the applicants are entitled for bail. 5. In reply, Ms. Shinde, the learned APP submitted that the applicants were found in possession of commercial quantity of Ganja, which they failed to explain. Therefore, there is a prima facie case against the applicants of having committed the present crime and in view of the rigours of Section 37 of NDPS Act, they are not entitled for bail. 6. I have considered these submissions. Although the informant claims that the car was found standing at the spot and the applicants were present in the car, there is no investigation as to from where the car had travelled up-to the spot. No investigation was made with the owner of the car till 06.08.2026 to ascertain whether he had given his car to the applicants or not. In fact, when this Court asked the reason for not recording the statement of the owner of the car, the Investigating Officer Ms. Anuradha Bhosale, PI recorded the statement of the owner on 06.08.2026. Although mobile phone numbers of the applicants were mentioned in the arrest form, the CDRs of their mobile phone numbers were not obtained to ascertain as to from where they had collected the Ganja and, from where they were travelling. 7. Rule 10 of the the (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022 (“NDPS-SSSD Rules”) provides for the procedure for drawing samples. Said Rule 10 read as under : “10. Drawing the samples.– (1) One sample, in duplicate, shall be drawn from each package and container seized. (2) When the packages and containers seized together are of identical size and weight bearing identical marking and the contents of each package give identical results on colour P.H. JAYANI 907 BA1200 WITH 1209.DOC test by the drugs identification kit, conclusively indicating that the packages are identical in all respects, the packages and containers may carefully be bunched in lots of not more than ten packages or containers, and for each such lot of packages and containers, one sample, in duplicate, shall be drawn: Provided that in the case of ganja, poppy straw and hashish (charas) it may be bunched in lots of not more than fourty packages or containers. (3) In case of drawing sample from a particular lot, it shall be ensured that representative sample in equal quantity is taken from each package or container of that lot and mixed together to make a composite whole from which the samples are drawn for that lot. 8. In the present case, there were total 50 similar packets each containing about 1 Kg of Ganja. The Inventory procedure was undertaken after 81 days, i.e., on 12.11.2025. The prosecution case is that, from the 1st lot of 25 packets, one sample of 30 grams Ganja was taken for the purpose of CA and another sample of 30 grams of Ganja was taken as a representative sample. The same procedure was followed in respect of the 2nd lot. However, the Inventory Certificate does not clearly indicate that equal quantity of Ganja was taken from each package or container of each lot and, mixed together to make a composite whole from which the samples were drawn for that lot. Thus, it appears that, sub Rule (3) of Rule 10 of the NDPS- SSSD Rules is not properly followed. If the delay in getting the Inventory done is considered in conjunction with the non- compliance of the guidelines in the matter of collection of samples, which may vitiate the seizure, the first condition of Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be said to have been met. P.H. JAYANI 907 BA1200 WITH 1209.DOC 9. The investigation is completed and further detention of the applicants in jail will not serve any purpose. The applicants are in jail for more than one year. Ms. Shaikh made a statement that, till the date, the Report of C.A. is not produced to show that the contraband seized from possession of the applicants was Ganja. In similar circumstances, bail is granted in the case of Bablu Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 631/2024 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therein, the accused was charged for possession of 28 kg of Opium. He was in custody for more than 3 years and five months. There was one criminal antecedent of similar nature against the said accused. 10. In the wake of above, the applicants may be released on bail. Thus, I am inclined to allow the application. Hence, Order :- (i) The applicants – Shahabaz Shamim Khan and Abubakr Mehandi Hasan Khan be released on bail in NDPS Special Case No.2656/2025 pending on the file of learned NDPS Special Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court, Gr. Bombay arising out of Cr.No.559/2025 registered with Wadala T.T. Police Station, Mumbai, on their executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with one or more sureties in the like amount. (ii) The applicants shall mark their attendance at Wadala T.T. Police Station, Mumbai twice i.e., on 1st and 16th day of each calender month between 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. till conclusion of the trial. (iii) The applicants shall regularly attend the proceedings before the jurisdictional Court unless exempted by the said Court. Page 5 of 6 P.H. JAYANI 907 BA1200 WITH 1209.DOC (iv) The applicants shall not reside in the Wadala area, Mumbai till conclusion of the trial. (v) The applicants shall not indulge in identical activities for which they have been arraigned in this case. (vi) The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall not directly or indirectly influence upon the prosecution witnesses to prevent them from deposing against him. (vii) On being released from jail, the applicants shall furnish their 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 merits of the case. 11. Bail Applications stand disposed of in aforesaid terms. (SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.) PREETI HEERO JAYANI Digitally signed by PREETI HEERO JAYANI Date: 2026.09.09 13:11:45 +0530