Bombay High Court

SHOAIB ABDUL MATIN SHAIKH @ CHETAKversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided: 22 September 2026
Disposal: Allowed

Holding

Bail is granted to the applicant with stringent conditions despite the Section 50 lapse and prior antecedent.

Summary

The applicant, Shoaib Abdul Matin Shaikh, was arrested for possession of 26 grams of mephedrone, an intermediate quantity under the NDPS Act, and charged under Sections 8(c), 22(b) and 29. He applied for bail after nine months of custody, arguing that the prosecution had not complied with Section 50 of the NDPS Act because no written waiver of his right to be searched before a gazetted officer or magistrate was obtained. The State contended that bail should be denied due to the applicant’s prior criminal antecedent and alleged involvement in illicit contraband business. The Court held that the lack of a written waiver rendered the Section 50 compliance defective, but noted the applicant’s prolonged pre‑trial detention, the intermediate quantity of the drug, and the absence of any recovery or pending charge. Consequently, the Court granted bail with stringent conditions, including a bond, regular police attendance, residence restrictions, and non‑interference with evidence and witnesses.

Issues considered

Whether the failure to obtain a written waiver under Section 50 of the NDPS Act warrants denial of bail.
Whether the applicant’s prior criminal antecedent and alleged illicit business justify refusal of bail.
Whether the intermediate quantity of the contraband and the applicant’s nine‑month pre‑trial detention merit grant of bail.

Legislation cited

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 22(b), 29, 50, 8(c)

Subjects

bail
NDPS Act
intermediate quantity
Section 50
right to be searched
criminal antecedent
pre‑trial detention

Judgment

P.H. JAYANI 911 BA1424.2026.DOC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1424 OF 2026

Shoaib Abdul Matin Shaikh @ Chetak …. Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra …Respondent

Ms. Puja Yadav i/b. Mr. Sheerat Kamath for the Applicant.
Mr. R.M. Pethe, APP for the Respondent – State.

CORAM: SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
DATED : 22nd SEPTEMBER, 2026

P.C. :-

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

2. The applicant seeks his release on bail in NDPS Special Case
No.373 of 2026 pending before the learned Special Judge, Gr.
Mumbai arising out of Cr.No.10/2026 registered with Mankhurd
Police Station, Mumbai for the offence punishable under Section
8(c) with 22(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS”) on the report dated 11.01.2026
filed by Shri. Hemant Sampat Divte.

3. The prosecution case is that, on 11.01.2026, at about 18:45
hours, on G.M. Link Road, Mankhurd, the applicant was found in
possession of 26 grams of Mephedrone which was supplied to him
by the co-accused Khalid Ramzan @ Rolex. Therefore, the
aforesaid crime came to be registered. On completion of the
investigation, police submitted the charge-sheet. The trial Court
declined to release the applicant on bail. Hence, this Application.

Page 1 of 4
P.H. JAYANI 911 BA1424.2026.DOC

4. Ms. Yadav, learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that
there is violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The contraband
allegedly seized from the applicant is of intermediate quantity. The
punishment of offence is imprisonment upto 10 years. The
applicant is behind bars for almost 9 months. Till date, the charge
is not framed. Therefore, he seeks to release the applicant on bail.

5. In response, Mr. Pethe, the learned APP submitted that
considering the facts of the case, violation of Section 50 of NDPS
Act, cannot be examined at this stage. Although the applicant is
found in possession of intermediate quantity, he has one criminal
antecedent of similar nature. The bank account statement of the
applicant indicates that he was involved in illicit business of the
contraband. Therefore, bail may be refused.

6. I have considered these submissions. Insofar as the violation
of Section 50 is concerned, Ms. Yadav is right. Because, neither on
the notice under Section 50, nor separately, the fact that the
applicant had declined to exercise his right of being searched
before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate is recorded with
Applicant’s signature.

6.1 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajan Kumar
Chadha v. State of Himachal Pradesh, reported in 2023 INSC 878,
noted that even in cases wherein the suspect waives such right by
electing to be searched by the empowered officer, such waiver on
the part of the suspect should be reduced into writing by the
empowered officer. To put it in other words, even if the suspect
says that he would not like to be searched before a Gazetted
Officer or Magistrate and he would be fine if his search is
undertaken by the empowered officer, the matter should not rest
with just an oral statement of the suspect. The suspect should be

Page 2 of 4
P.H. JAYANI 911 BA1424.2026.DOC

asked to give it in writing duly signed by him in presence of the
empowered officer as well as the other officials of the squad that
“I was apprised of my right to be searched before a Gazetted
Officer or Magistrate in accordance with Section 50 of the NDPS
Act, however, I declare on my own free will and volition that I
would not like to exercise my right of being searched before a
Gazetted Officer or Magistrate and I may be searched by the
empowered officer.” This would lend more credence to the
compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act.

7. Although the applicant has one criminal antecedent, he is on
bail in the said case and there is no recovery from him, as
submitted by Ms. Yadav. The seized contraband is an intermediate
quantity. The applicant is in jail for last 9 months. In the wake of
the above, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail but with
stringent conditions. Hence, the following Order :-

(i) The applicant - Shoaib Abdul Matin Shaikh @ Chetak
be released on bail in NDPS Special Case No.373 of 2026
pending before the learned Special Judge, Gr. Mumbai
arising out of Cr.No.10/2026 registered with Mankhurd
Police Station, on his executing 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 Mankhurd
Police Station, Mumbai on 1st and 16th day of every 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.

Page 3 of 4
P.H. JAYANI 911 BA1424.2026.DOC

(iv) The applicant shall not indulge in identical activities
for which he has been arraigned in this case.

(v) The applicant shall not reside and enter in Trombay
area for a period of one year except for marking his
attendance at Mankhurd Police Station.

Ms. Yadav, the learned Counsel, On instructions,
stated that the applicant will reside in Thane District for the
said period of one year.

(vi) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence and shall not directly or indirectly influence the
prosecution witnesses to prevent them from deposing
against him.

(vii) 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.

(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
the merits of the case.

8. Bail Application stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.

(SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)
Digitally
signed by
PREETI
PREETI HEERO
HEERO JAYANI
JAYANI Date:
2026.09.24
21:16:51
+0530
Page 4 of 4

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.