ZEENATH MUNAWARALI SHAHversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

           Digitally
           signed by    H.C.SHIV                                           906.BA1519.26.DOC
           HEMANT
HEMANT     CHANDERSEN
CHANDERSEN SHIV
SHIV       Date:
           2026.09.05
           11:24:48
           +0300
                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                          BAIL APPLICATION NO.1519 OF 2026

                        Zeenath Munawarali Shah                                   …. Applicant
                              V/s.
                        State of Maharashtra                                     …Respondent



                        Mr. Mithilesh Mishra for the Applicant.
                        Mr. R. M. Pethe, APP for the Respondent – State.
                        Mr. Sagar Parkale, PSI, D. N. Nagar police station present.



                                                     CORAM:        SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
                                                     DATED :       1st SEPTEMBER, 2026
                        P.C. :-



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

                        2.         Present application seeks release of the applicant on bail in
                        connection with Cr.No.517 of 2025 registered with D. N. Nagar
                        police station, Thane for the offence punishable under Sections
                        8(c), 22(b) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
                        Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”) and Section 78 of the The
                        Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

                        3.         The prosecution case is that, on 15 th May 2025, at about
                        19.00 hours, the police team of D.N. Nagar police station, Thane
                        including the informant - Rishikesh Babar, Police Constable were
                        patrolling through a slum at Sai Baba Society, Usmania Dairy,
                        Andheri (West), Mumbai. At that time they spotted a boy
                        (juvenile), who was standing there in the lane in a suspicious
                        manner. The police team went to him, but, he escaped in a nearby

                                                          Page 1 of 4
H.C.SHIV                                          906.BA1519.26.DOC



room. The police chased him there and apprehended. On enquiry,
the JB disclosed that he had come there to sell contraband
substance ‘MD’ on the say of the applicant. Further, police seized 10
grams of MD from the possession of the JB. Therefore, the JB came
to be arrested. However, the applicant was absconding. Meanwhile,
her anticipatory bail applications were rejected by the Sessions
Court and this Court. Finally, the applicant was arrested on
23.01.2026 and charge-sheeted. The trial Court declined to release
the applicant on bail. Hence, this application.

4.         Mr.Mishra, learned Counsel for the applicant submits that,
except the statement of the juvenile that the applicant was
supplying him the contraband to sell, there is no other evidence
indicating that the applicant was involved in this crime. He
submitted that, although the bank account statements of the
applicant showing various credit-debit entries, majority credit
entries pertain to the deposits made by the applicant’s husband and
her brother. Therefore, it is not sufficient to draw an adverse
inference. There is one similar criminal antecedent, therein, no
contraband was seized from the applicant and she is on bail.
Additionally, in that case, she has sought for her discharge, which
application is pending. Therefore, the applicant is innocent and she
deserves for bail.

5.         Mr. Pethe, learned APP on the other hand pointed out that,
earlier, an FIR No.400 of 2023, was registered against the
applicant. In that case, accused no.1 was found in possession of 6
grams of ‘Mephedrone’ and on enquiry, said accused had disclosed
that the applicant had supplied him that contraband to sell.
Further, Mr. Pethe, pointed out that as per the bank records the
applicant had income of Rs.50,000/- per annum, but, the credit


                                 Page 2 of 4
H.C.SHIV                                             906.BA1519.26.DOC



entries in the bank accounts of the applicant show that, between 1 st
March 2025 to 31st December 2025, about Rs.18,00,000/- were
credited in her bank accounts. These circumstances clearly indicate
that the applicant is dealing in illicit business of ‘MD’ and earning
money. Therefore, the prayer for bail be rejected.

6.         I have considered these submissions. Perusal of the record
reveals that, in the earlier crime, when the accused no.1 was
accosted and immediately enquired by police, said accused
disclosed that the applicant had given him that contraband to sell.
This circumstance is similar to the case in hand. Surprisingly, in
both the cases, the same contraband substance was seized by the
police which was given by the applicant for sell. The CDRs on
record indicate that the applicant and the JB were in
regular/constant contact with each other just before the JB was
apprehended and contraband seized from his possession. The
learned APP submitted that the seized contraband ‘MD’ is a costly
narcotic substance. This contention is not controverted.

7.         As per the record, the applicant had three bank accounts, i.e.,
Canara Bank, HDFC bank and Union Bank of India. It is alleged
that between 1st March 2025 and 31st December 2025, there were
total credit entries of around Rs.18,00,000/- in 10 months in the
bank accounts of the applicant. This is contradictory to the
applicant’s annual income of Rs.50,000/- declared in the bank
account opening form of the Union Bank of India.

8.         Mr. Mishra, the learned Counsel submitted that most of the
credit entries in the bank accounts of the applicants were the
deposits made by her husband and the brother. It is informed that
the husband of the applicant was residing with her and her brother
was residing in the same locality. However, Mr. Mishra has not

                                   Page 3 of 4
H.C.SHIV                                            906.BA1519.26.DOC



clarified as to whether these family members had their own bank
account or not and as to why they were regularly depositing the
money in her bank accounts.

9.         There are statements of the neighbour of the applicant, have
categorically stated that the applicant has been dealing with illicit
contraband substance in huge quantity and in furtherance of the
same, was exploiting and using minor children.

10.        In view of the above discussion, there is strong prima facie
case against the applicant for having dealt with illegal contraband
business to earn money. For that purpose, she involved the JB.
Therefore, the offence is serious. Although the applicant is on bail
in the earlier crime and the rigor of Section 37 are not applicable, it
cannot be ignored that the applicant has misused that bail liberty.
Therefore, even if the applicant is released on bail on the ground
that she is a woman and the contraband substance was less than
commercial quantity, the possibility of the applicant repeating the
crime can not be ruled out.

11.        In the wake of above, the applicant is not entitled for bail.
Hence, the bail application is rejected.

12.        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 out come of the trial and also not be taken
as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.



                                   (SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)




                                  Page 4 of 4