Bombay High Court
RAMANAND RAMASHRAY GOUND @ RAVIversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The Court held that the search and seizure were vitiated due to the failure to record the applicant's waiver of his Section 50 right, and consequently granted bail.
Summary
The applicant, Ramanand Ramashray Gound, was arrested under Sections 8(c) read with 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act after a personal search yielded 356 grams of Mephedrone. The defence argued that the notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act did not properly record the applicant's waiver of his right to be searched before a gazetted officer or magistrate, rendering the search and seizure illegal. The State contended that the notice was served, the applicant refused the right, and therefore the search was lawful. The Court examined the requirements of Section 50, noting that the waiver must be recorded in writing, which was absent in this case. Finding the search vitiated and considering the applicant's lack of prior criminal record and prolonged pre‑trial detention, the Court granted bail on condition of a bond and surety.
Issues considered
- Whether the personal search conducted under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was valid despite the absence of a recorded waiver of the right to be searched before a gazetted officer or magistrate.
- Whether the procedural lapse in the search justifies granting bail to the accused.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 22(c), 29, 37, 50, 8(c)
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- Section 50
- search and seizure
- waiver of rights
- procedural lapse
- personal search
- Mephedrone
Judgment
HEMANT
CHANDERSEN H.C.SHIV 922.BA1257.26.DOC
SHIV
Digitally signed by
HEMANT
CHANDERSEN SHIV IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Date: 2026.10.05 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
11:50:45 +0300
BAIL APPLICATION NO.1257 OF 2026
Ramanand Ramashray Gound @ Ravi …Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra …Respondent
Mr. Atul S. Sarpande, Ravendra R. Shukla with Kamlesh Satre,
Pankaj Sinha for the Applicant.
Mr. Vinod Chate, APP for the Respondent-State.
Mr. Avinash Darade, PSI, ANC, Kandivali Unit present.
CORAM: SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
DATED : 1st OCTOBER, 2026
P.C. :-
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record.
2. Present Application seeks release of the Applicant on bail in
NDPS Special Case No.2227 of 2025, registered with Kandivali Unit
arising out of Cr. No.38 of 2025, registered with ANC, Kandivali
Unit, Mumbai for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read
with 22(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (for short “NDPS Act”).
3. The prosecution case is that, on 23rd April 2023, at about
21:45 hours, when the police team of ANC, Kandivali Unit including
the informant – Narendra Rokde, Police Constable arrived near
Times of India building, on Western Express Highway, the
applicant was present there, near an electric pole. His conduct
appeared suspicious. He was, therefore, accosted by Mr.Dhumal,
Police Inspector and served with a notice u/S. 50 of the NDPS Act in
the presence of two panchas. The applicant permitted Mr.Dhumal
to take his personal search. The personal search of the applicant
Page 1 of 5
H.C.SHIV 922.BA1257.26.DOC
was then conducted in the presence the panchas. A plastic bag
containing 356 grams of ‘Mephedrone’ was found in the left side
pant pocket of the applicant. Said contraband substance was seized
under a panchnama. Accordingly, said crime was registered and, the
applicant came to be arrested and charge-sheet came to be filed.
The trial Court refused to release the applicant on bail.
4. Mr. Sarpande, learned Counsel for the applicant submitted
that Section 50 of the NDPS Act was not properly complied with in
this case before taking the personal search of the applicant. As a
result, the search and seizure of the contraband is suspicious and
vitiated. He submitted that the applicant is in jail for last 1 year and
5 months. In these circumstances, the applicant be released on bail.
5. In reply, Mr. Chate, the learned APP submitted that before
carrying out the personal search of the applicant, he was served
with a proper notice u/S. 50 of NDPS Act and, apprised that, he has
a right of being searched before the nearest Gazetted Officer or a
Magistrate as required in Section 50 of NDPS Act. However, the
applicant refused to be taken before such authorities and permitted
Mr.Dhumal to take his personal search. Accordingly, the search was
conducted when the applicant was found in possession of the
commercial quantity of the Mephedrone. However, the applicant
has not shown that he is not guilty of the alleged offence. Therefore,
the applicant is not entitled for bail.
6. I have considered these submissions. The main thrust of the
submissions of Mr.Sarpande is that before effecting the personal
search of the applicant, his response that he had understood his
right of being searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate; that
he had waived his said right; and that, he may be searched by the
empowered officer Mr.Dhumal, is not recorded in the notice nor in
Page 2 of 5
H.C.SHIV 922.BA1257.26.DOC
the panchnama, by Mr. Dhumal. Consequently, it is doubtful that
the applicant was informed of his right and that he had waived to
exercise said right. This circumstance alone renders the search and
seizure of the contraband suspicious and illegal.
7. The said notice u/S. 50 of NDPS Act reads as under :-
धारा ५०, एन.डी.पी.एस. ऑक्ट १९८५ तहत पत्र
वैभव विवजय धुमाळ
पोलीस विनरीक्षक,
अंमली पदार्थ) विवरोधी कक्ष,
गुन्हे शाखा, गु.उ.विव., मुंबई.
तारीख:- २३/०४/२०२५
प्रतित,
रामानंद रामआश्रय गौड ऊर्फ) रवी, वय २४ वर्ष) , धं
दा- नोकरी (इव्हेन्ट मॅनेजमेंट), शिशक्षण १२ वी,
रा.विH.- शिशवग चाळ, भीम नगर, दामू नगर,
आकुलK रोड, नालंदा बुध्द विवहार जवळ,
कांविदवली (पू.), मुंबई ४००१०१.
"एन.डी.पी.एस. कायदा १९८५ के धारा ५० के तहत, आप अपनी तलाशी विकसी
नजविदक के दंडातिधकारी या राजपवित्रत अतिधकारी के सामने देने का आपको हक है। अगर आप
ऐसी मांग करते हो, तो हम इंतजाम करेंगे।"
(वैभव धुमाळ)
पोलीस विनरीक्षक
अंमली पदार्थ) विवरोधी कक्ष
कांविदवली युनीट, गु.शा. गु.अ.विव. मुंबई
समक्ष
Sign Eng.
(संतोर्ष पाटील) पंच – १ (Sign Eng).
पोलीस उप विनरीक्षक,
अंमली पदार्थ) विवरोधी कक्ष, पंच – २ (Sign Eng).
गुन्हे शाखा, गु.अ.विव., मुंबई.
8. The notice indicates that there was no ambiguity in it about
informing the applicant of his right u/S. 50 of NDPS Act. As held in
the case of Ranjan Kumar Chadha v. State of H.P., reported in 2023
SCC OnLine SC 1262, in paragraph 64 (ii), “Where, the person to be
Page 3 of 5
H.C.SHIV 922.BA1257.26.DOC
searched declines to exercise this right, the police officer shall be
free to proceed with the search. However, if the suspect declines to
exercise his right of being searched before a Gazetted Officer or
Magistrate, the empowered officer should take it in writing from the
suspect that he would not like to exercise his right of being searched
before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate and he may be searched by
the empowered officer.”
9. In the case in hand, the notice of Section 50 bears the
signature of the applicant, but, it does not contain his response
thereto. Even though the panchnama bears the signature of the
applicant, it is towards an acknowledgment about receipt of its
copy. Therefore, impliedly, it appears that since the the applicant
had declined his right of being searched before a Gazetted Officer or
Magistrate, in the panchnama, the empowered officer/the Gazetted
Officer Mr. Dhumal recorded that the police may take the personal
search of the applicant. However, the said decline is not clearly
recorded as enunciated in the case of Ranjan Kumar Chadha
(Supra). As a matter of record, since beginning Mr. Dhumal was
present in the raiding party.
10. In the wake of above, prima facie, the search and seizure of
the contraband from the possession of the applicant may be
suspicious and vitiated on account of not properly recording the
applicant’s waiver of his right u/S. 50 of NDPS Act. The applicant
has no criminal antecedents. Therefore, the rigours of Section 37 are
not applicable to this case. The applicant is in jail for more than 19
months. There is no possibility of concluding his trial in near future.
11. As a result, the application is allowed. Hence, Order:-
(i) Applicant – Ramanand Ramashray Gound @ Ravi be
released on bail in aforesaid FIR registered with ANC,
Page 4 of 5
H.C.SHIV 922.BA1257.26.DOC
Kandivali Unit, Mumbai on his executing P.R. Bond in the
sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one or two sureties in the like
amount.
(ii) The applicant shall mark his attendance at ANC,
Kandivali Unit, Mumbai on 1st day of each 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.
(iv) The applicant 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.
(v) 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.
(vi) The applicant shall not indulge in identical activities for
which he has been arraigned in this case.
(vii) It is clarified that any observation made in the present
order are for the purpose of deciding the present Bail
Application. The trial Court shall decide the said case without
getting influenced by any of the said observations.
12. At this stage, as requested by Mr.Sarpande, the applicant is
granted four weeks time to furnish surety. Till then, the applicant be
released on bail on his executing a P.R.Bond in the sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- and depositing a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in lieu of
furnishing the surety bond. On furnishing such surety/ies, the
amount of Rs.1,00,000/- shall be returned.
13. Bail Application stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.
(SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)
Page 5 of 5
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.