Bombay High Court
SANTOSH LAXMAN SINGHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
Section 50 of the NDPS Act was not properly complied with, and the applicant was granted bail.
Summary
Santosh Laxman Singh was arrested in a police trap after a bag hanging around his neck yielded cocaine, leading to charges under Sections 8(c), 21(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act. The applicant sought bail, arguing that the personal search was preceded by a proper Section 50 notice and citing his wife's serious medical condition. The State contended that the quantity was commercial and Section 50 compliance was immaterial. The Court examined precedents on Section 50, finding that the notice did not adequately record the accused’s waiver of the right to be searched before a gazetted officer, rendering the search non‑compliant. Considering the procedural lapse, the marginal excess over intermediate quantity, the prolonged pre‑trial detention, and the applicant’s family hardship, the Court granted bail with conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act were complied with in the personal search of the accused.
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite the alleged commercial quantity of the contraband.
- Whether the medical condition of the applicant’s wife warrants bail.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 21(c), 29, 37, 50, 8(c)
Subjects
- NDPS Act
- Section 50
- personal search
- bail
- medical hardship
- drug trafficking
- intermediate quantity
Judgment
HEMANT
CHANDERSEN H.C.SHIV 18.BA1888.26.DOC
SHIV
Digitally signed by
HEMANT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CHANDERSEN SHIV
Date: 2026.10.07 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
15:13:11 +0300
BAIL APPLICATION NO.1888 OF 2026
Santosh Laxman Singh …Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. …Respondents
Mr. Advait Tamhankar, through VC with Shivraj Kuchge i/b Anil
Wagh for the Applicant.
Ms. Veera Shinde, APP for Respondent No.1-State.
CORAM: SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
DATED : 5th OCTOBER, 2026
P.C. :-
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record.
2. Applicant seeks his release on bail in NDPS Special Case
No.58 of 2025, in connection with Cr. No.163 of 2025, registered
with Palghar police station, Palghar for the offence punishable
under Sections 8(c), 21(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “NDPS Act”) on the
report dated 6th June 2025, filed by the first informant.
3. The prosecution case is that, on 5 th June 2025, at about 23.00
hours, when the informant along with Mr.Anil Vhatkar, API, Mr.
Rathod, PSI and other police personnel were patrolling within area
of Manor police station, Mr. Rathod received a secret information
that two persons would be arriving at Eastern side area of Palghar
railway station to sell the contraband substance. In turn,
Mr.Vhatkar, conveyed that information to local crime branch, NCB,
Palghar, who directed for taking necessary action. Therefore, the
police called two panchas and, at about 01.30 hours, they came to
at Ambedkar Maidan, near Gandhi Nagar slum and laid a trap
Page 1 of 8
H.C.SHIV 18.BA1888.26.DOC
there. At about 02.25 hours, the applicant and Harshad Thorat (A2)
came there. Their appearance matched with the secret information,
therefore, they were accosted. Then, the notice under Section 50 of
the NDPS Act was served upon both the accused, which read thus :-
एन.डी.पी.एस. अधि निनयम कलम ५० अन्वये समजपुत्र
प्रधि ,
१) सं ोष लक्ष्मण सिंसह वय ४३ वष' सध्या राहणार शां ी चाळ धिचराग स्कुल जवळ
भैयापाडा चोईसर मुळ राहणारं ग्राम सु ार पो.सालाबाद हसिसल मा वगड सिजल्हा
जालोन राज्य उत्तरप्रदेश
२) हष< द व्दारकानाथ थोरा वय ४२ वष' राहणार साई पाक< निबल्डींग नंबर ३ सी विंवग
रुम नं.४ ारापुर रोड कुरगांव ा.सिज. पालघर
आपणास याव्दारे कळनिवण्या ये े की, मी सहा. पोलीस निनरीक्षक, अनिनलं
व्हटकर नेमणुक स्थानिनक गुन्हे शाखा पालघर, आम्ही स्व ः राजपनित्र अधि कारी
असुन आज निद.०६/०६/२०२५ रोजी ०२.२५ वा. पासून गां ीनगर झोपडपटटी
परीसरा अंमली पदाथ< निवक्री करी घेवून जा अस ाना आं बेडकरनगर मैदान जवळ
निमळू न आले आहा .
री आपली व आपली अंगझड ी पंचाचे उपस्थी ी घ्यावयाची आहे.. सदरची
झड़ ी ही मी स्व ः विंकव आपली हरक असल्यास इ र कोणी राजपनित्र अधि कारी
अथवा दंडाधि कारी यांचे समक्ष घेण्या येईल याकरी आपली काही हरक आहे अगर
कसे ? याबाब आपली लेखी संम ी देण्या यावी.
०६/०६/२०२५
sd/-
(अनिनल व्हटकर)
सहा. पोलीस निनरीक्षक
स्थानिनक गुन्हे शाखा, पालघर
आरोपी सही :- १) सही (Eng.) २) सही (Eng.)
१) श्री. प्रभाकर निवष्णु लडे, वय ४३ वष', द
ं ा शे ी राहणार सही (Mar.)
मु.पो.देवखोप ा.सिज.पालघर मोबाईल क्रमांक ***** *****
२) श्री. मोहन निवष्णु पाटील वय ६२, वष', द
ं ा शे ी राहणार सही (Eng.)
मु.पो.उमरोली ा.सिज.पालघर मोबाईल क्रमांक ***** *****
Page 2 of 8
H.C.SHIV 18.BA1888.26.DOC
4. In response, both the accused orally informed that they do
not require the same and singed on the notice to that effect.
Therefore, Mr.Vhatkar conducted the personal search of the
applicant. 15 small pouches were found in the bag hanging around
the neck of the applicant. Said pouches were containing some
powdery substance. On enquiry, the applicant disclose that it was
‘Cocaine’. A sample from one pouch was tested with Drug Detection
Field Kit, which gave the positive result for ‘cocaine’. Nothing
incriminating was found on the person of A2. The said contraband
was seized under a panchnama was recorded. Accordingly, the
aforesaid crime came to be registered. The applicant and A2 were
arrested. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet came to
be filed. The trial Court declined to release the applicant on bail.
Hence, this application.
5. Mr.Tamhankar, learned Counsel for the applicant submitted
that although the contraband was found in the bag as stated above,
compliance with Section 50 of NDPS Act was necessary, as the
personal search was also undertaken in this case before searching
the said bag. Additionally, he submitted that the wife of the
applicant is suffering from Tuberculosis and Renal problem.
Presently, she is on dialysis which fact is substantiated by the
relevant medical papers (copies). Therefore, has urged to release the
applicant on bail.
6. In reply, Ms. Shinde, learned APP submitted that the
commercial quantity of the contraband substance was found in the
bag which was hanging around the neck of the applicant. Therefore,
the non compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act is insignificant.
The applicant has failed to explain the contraband. Therefore, rigors
of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are applicable in this case.
Page 3 of 8
H.C.SHIV 18.BA1888.26.DOC
Consequently, the medical condition of the wife of applicant will not
come to his rescue. Therefore, bail be refused.
7. I have considered the submissions. As alleged, the contraband
was found in a bag of the applicant hanging around his neck.
However, since the personal search of the applicant preceded the
search of the bag, the law mandates that in such circumstances
Section 50 of NDPS Act is properly complied with. This conclusion
is supported with the decision in Sk. Raju @ Abdul Haque @ Jagga
v. The State of West Bengal, reported in (2018) 9 SCC 708. Therein,
the appellant was apprehended in a public place pursuant to a
secret information. He was served with the notice of Section 50 and
informed about his right. On the search of the appellant by PW2 in
the presence of the gazetted officer, a biscuit colour jute bag which
the appellant was carrying in his right hand was recovered from the
appellant, and Rs. 2,400/- cash in the denomination of 24 notes of
Rs. 100/- each was found in the left pocket of the appellant’s
trouser. When the bag was opened, a black polythene cover
containing nineteen rectangular broken sheets of a blackish / deep
brown colour weighing 1.5 kilograms was recovered. The sheets
were tested and were found to be charas. Therefore, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that, since the search of the person of the
appellant was also involved, Section 50 would be attracted in that
case.
8. Coming back to the case in hand. The notice of Section 50
indicate that it was in the joint names of the applicant and A2. An
accused person who is about to be subjected to a personal search
must be informed only of their right to be searched in the presence
of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. However, in this case, Mr.
Page 4 of 8
H.C.SHIV 18.BA1888.26.DOC
Vhatkar also gave his own option, he being the Gazetted Officer,
which amounted to third option.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v.
Parmanand and another, reported in (2014) 5 SCC 345, held that
the idea behind taking an accused to the nearest Magistrate or the
nearest gazetted offficer, if he so requires, is to give him a chance of
being searched in presence of an independent officer. Therefore, it
is improper for a police officer to tell the accused that a third
alternative is also available and, that they could be searched before
J.S.Negi, the Superintendent who was part of raiding party. That,
J.S.Negi cannot be called an independent officer. The Apex Court
also took the view that a joint communication of the right available
under Section 50 of the NDPS Act to the accused would frustrate the
very purport of Section 50.
9. As held in the case of Ranjan Kumar Chadha v. State of H.P.,
reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1262, in paragraph 66 (ii),
“Where, the person to be 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.”
In the case in hand, the notice of Section 50 bears the
signature of the applicant and A2, but, it does not contain their
response thereto. Even though the panchanama bears the signature
of the applicant and A2, it is towards an acknowledgment about
receipt of its copy. Therefore, implicitly, it appears that since the
applicant had declined his right of being searched before a Gazetted
Page 5 of 8
H.C.SHIV 18.BA1888.26.DOC
Officer or Magistrate, in the panchanama, the empowered/Gazetted
Officer Mr. Vhatkar 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 evident from record, since recording of the pre-trap
panchanama Mr. Vhatkar was present in the raiding party.
Therefore, I have no hesitation to accept that Section 50 (1) of
NDPS Act was not properly complied in this case and it violated the
right of the applicant stated therein which, prima facie, renders the
recovery of the illicit article suspect .
10. Additionally, I have considered that the Respondent-police
have verified the medical papers of the wife of the applicant and
reported that she is undergoing necessary medical treatment. Mr.
Tamhankar submit that her both kidneys are not functioning
normally, therefore, she is in need of the support of the applicant
who is a sole earning member of the family. The contraband
substance found in the bag of the applicant is marginally above
intermediate quantity, i.e., by 20 gms. The applicant is in jail for last
more than 15 months. Till the date, no charge is framed in the case.
Therefore, the applicant’s right to liberty needs to be considered,
accordingly.
11. The upshot of the above discussion is that, the applicant may
be released on bail. Thus, I am inclined to allow the application.
Hence, following Order :-
(i) The Applicant – Santosh Laxman Singh be released on
bail in NDPS Special Case No.58 of 2025, in connection with
Cr. No.163/2025, registered with Palghar police station,
Page 6 of 8
H.C.SHIV 18.BA1888.26.DOC
Palghar , 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 Palghar
police station, Palghar 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
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 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.
12. At this stage, as requested by the learned Counsel
Mr.Tamhankar, the applicant is granted three weeks time to furnish
surety. Till then, the applicant be released on bail on his executing a
Page 7 of 8
H.C.SHIV 18.BA1888.26.DOC
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. On furnishing
such surety/ies, the amount of Rs.50,000/- deposited by the
applicant shall be returned.
13. Bail Application stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.
(SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)
Page 8 of 8
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.