Bombay High Court
FIRDOS RASHID SHAIKH ALIAS LACCHOversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- SHYAM C CHANDAK
Holding
The Court held that the applicant is entitled to bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Firdos Rashid Shaikh alias Laccho, who was arrested for alleged possession of 13 bottles of chlorpheniramine maleate and codeine phosphate syrup, offences under Sections 8(c) and 22(c) of the NDPS Act. The applicant argued that her personal search was invalid because it was conducted in the presence of a male Gazetted Officer, violating Section 50(4) of the NDPS Act, and that she had been detained for almost two years without any witness examination. The State contended that the contraband amounted to a commercial quantity, the applicant had prior criminal antecedents, and therefore bail should be denied. The Court noted the procedural irregularity of the search, the hardship caused by prolonged pre‑trial detention, the marginally above‑commercial quantity of the seized drugs, and the applicant’s prior bail in similar cases. Consequently, the Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, ordering her release on a Rs.50,000 personal bond with standard conditions.
Issues considered
- The validity of a personal search of a woman conducted in the presence of a male Gazetted Officer under Section 50(4) of the NDPS Act.
- Whether the quantity of narcotics seized and the applicant's prior criminal antecedents preclude the grant of bail.
- Whether prolonged pre‑trial detention without trial warrants the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 22(c), 50(4), 8(c)
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- personal search
- gender
- commercial quantity
- pre‑trial detention
- Section 50(4)
- narcotics
Judgment
PRASAD 20_BA_1628_2025.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO.1628 OF 2025
Digitally signed Firdos Rashid Shaikh Alias Laccho ...Applicant
by PRASAD
PRASAD RAJENDRASING
RAJENDRASING RAJPUT
RAJPUT
Date: 2026.07.09 V/s.
19:45:19 +0530
State Of Mahrahstra …Respondent
Mr. Kamlesh Mahadev Satre, for the Applicant.
Mr. Prasanna Malshe, APP for the Respondent – State.
Mr. Sushil Londhe, API a/w Mr. Nitin Palande, API, Trombay
Police Station, present.
CORAM: SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
DATED : 7TH JULY 2026
P.C. :-
. The Applicant seeks her release on bail in connection with
C.R. No.421 of 2024, registered with Trombay Police Station,
District Mumbai, for offence punishable under Sections 8(c) and
22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
(for short “NDPS Act”).
2. Heard Mr. Satre, learned counsel for the Applicant and
Mr.Malshe, learned APP for Respondent – State.
3. The prosecution case is that on 28.08.2024, at about 22:30
hours at Chita Camp, near Maharashtra Nagar Road, Mankhurd
Mumbai – 10, the Applicant was found in possession of 13 bottles
of chlorpheniramine maleate and codeine phosphate syrup. The
said bottles were seized in the presence of Panchas recording a
Panchanama. Mr. Ramchandra Akhade, PHC filed the Report
based on which said crime came to be registered. The Applicant
was arrested on 29.08.2024. Investigation culminated into filing
Page 1 of 4
PRASAD 20_BA_1628_2025.DOC
of charge-sheet. The Applicant’s prayer for bail came to be
declined by the Trial Court.
4. Mr. Satre, learned counsel for the Applicant, submitted that
the Applicant is seeking bail on the ground that personal search of
the Applicant is vitiated because it was conducted in presence of
male Gazetted Officer. In Miss. Heena Bharat Shah v. State of
Maharashtra (B.A. No. 1051 of 2016, decided on 24.04.2017), this
Court referred to the Division Bench judgment in Mrs. Veenela
Tilak v. Shri Shahasane, Assistant Collector of Customs & Anr.
1997 All MR (Cri) 368 and held that, such a personal search of a
woman is in contravention of Section 50 (4) of the NDPS Act and
it is violative of the said provision. Secondly, he submitted that the
Applicant is behind bars for almost two years. Although the
charges are framed, no witness has been examined till date.
5. Mr. Malshe, the learned APP for the Respondent – State,
submitted that the Applicant is found in possession of commercial
quantity of contraband. The Applicant has not shown that she is
not guilty of the offence. The Applicant has two criminal
antecedents. Therefore, he submits that Application be rejected.
6. I have considered these submissions. It is fact that, the
Applicant was searched in the presence of male Gazetted Officers.
Secondly, the Applicant is behind bars for almost two years. Mr.
Malshe stated that the prosecution is going to examine ten
witnesses, which will take at least a year. The Applicant is a
woman. The contraband is marginally above the commercial
quantity. However, the value of the contraband seized is
Rs.7,800/-. It cannot be denied that the Applicant’s incarceration
must be causing great hardships to her family. Out of the two
crimes previously registered against the Applicant, one is for small
Page 2 of 4
PRASAD 20_BA_1628_2025.DOC
quantity and another for intermediate quantity. In both crimes,
she is enlarged on bail. Considering these aspects, the Applicant is
entitled for bail. Hence, following Order :-
(i) Applicant – Firdos Rashid Shaikh Alias Laccho be
released on bail in C.R. No.421 of 2024, registered with
Trombay Police Station, District Mumbai, for offence
punishable under Sections 8(c) and 22(c) of the NDPS Act,
on her 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 her attendance at Trombay
Police Station, Mumbai on 1st day of each calender 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 unless exempted by the said
Court, for the reasons to be recorded in writing.
(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 her 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 she has been arraigned in this case.
Page 3 of 4
PRASAD 20_BA_1628_2025.DOC
(vii) By way of abundant caution, it is clarified that the
observations made hereinabove are confined for the
purpose of determination to the entitlement for bail and
they may not be construed as an expression of opinion on
the guilt or otherwise of the Applicant and the trial Court
shall not be influenced by any of the observations made
hereinabove.
7. Bail Application stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.
8. At this stage, as requested by Mr. Satre, the Applicant is
granted two weeks time to furnish surety. Till then, the Applicant
be released on bail on her executing a P.R. Bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- and depositing a sum of Rs.50,000/- in lieu of
furnishing the surety bond.
9. At the end of the said period of two weeks, the Applicant
shall furnish surety. On furnishing such surety/ies, the amount of
Rs.50,000/- deposited by the Applicant shall be returned.
(SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)
Page 4 of 4
Checking your session…