Bombay High Court

MEGHA DEEPAK JAGTAPversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided: 30 September 2026
Disposal: Allowed

Holding

A breach of Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act, wherein a police officer pretends to be a gazetted officer for the purpose of search, warrants the grant of bail.

Summary

Megha Deepak Jagtap was arrested on 29‑10‑2025 for alleged possession and supply of narcotic drugs, including MD and ganja, and the trial court denied her bail. She filed a bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, contending that the investigating officer, a police inspector, had violated Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act by presenting herself as a gazetted officer and offering to conduct the search herself. The High Court examined the statutory requirements of Section 50, noting that a police officer cannot claim gazetted status for a search and must take the accused before a proper gazetted officer or magistrate. Relying on several precedents where similar breaches led to bail, the Court held that the procedural violation created a reasonable doubt about the legality of the search and therefore warranted bail. Consequently, the Court granted bail with standard conditions, emphasizing that the order was limited to bail and not on the merits of the underlying narcotics charges.

Issues considered

The validity of the search conducted when the police inspector claimed to be a gazetted officer under Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act.
Whether a breach of Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act justifies granting bail to the accused.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 100
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 20(b)(ii)(a), 22(c), 29, 50, 8(c)

Subjects

bail
NDPS Act
Section 50
gazetted officer
search procedure
narcotics
procedural violation
criminal procedure

Judgment

1.BA.3393.2026.doc

Ajay

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3393 OF 2026

Megha Deepak Jagtap .. Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
....................
 Mr. Vaibhav Ugle a/w. Prashant Mahajan, Advocates for Applicant.
 Mr. Sukanta Karmakar, APP for Respondent – State.
 PI - Mr. S.S. Chavan (ANTF Pune).
......…...........

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 30, 2026.

P.C.:

1. Heard Mr. Ugle, learned Advocate for Applicant and Mr.

Karmakar, learned APP for Respondent – State.

2. Present Application is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by Applicant in

connection with C.R. No.916 of 2025 and chargesheet No.209 of 2026

for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(a), 22(c)

and 29 of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for

short ‘NDPS Act’).

3. Case of prosecution is that Applicant was apprehended and

found in possession of alleged contraband MD and that Applicant is a

retail supplier of the contraband. Applicant is working as RTO agent

and she was arrested on 29.10.2025. Bail Application of Applicant was

1 of 8
1.BA.3393.2026.doc

rejected by the Trial Court on 08.07.2026.

4. Mr. Ugle, learned Advocate for Applicant argued that

Applicant is seeking bail essentially on the ground of non - compliance

of the provisions of Section 50(1) of NDPS Act, 1985. He has drawn

my attention to the Notice issued under Section 50, copy of which is

appended at page No.56 and 57, and would contend that the Police

Inspector who issued the notice to Applicant has identified herself as a

Gazetted Officer and offered to search Applicant herself or in the

alternate Applicant could subject herself to search through another

Gazetted Officer. He would submit that such conduct by the

Investigating Officer or raiding party oficer to identify oneself as a

Gazetted Officer to undertake the search is contrary to law.

5. Mr. Karmakar, learned APP would submit that Applicant was

found in possession of 54 grams and 55 milligrams of MD drugs and 5

grams 53 miligrans of MD as well as 40 grams and 29 miligrans of

Ganja in her house. He would submit that Applicant along with

Accused No.2 sold the contraband which was procured from Accused

No.3. The Notice dated 28.10.2025 is reproduced hereunder for

reference. The acknowledgment of Applicant is also reproduced

thereunder:-

2 of 8
1.BA.3393.2026.doc

3 of 8
1.BA.3393.2026.doc

6. I have perused the record with the able assistance of the

learned Advocates and APP at the bar.

4 of 8
1.BA.3393.2026.doc

7. Section 50 of the NDPS Act reads thus:-

“50. Conditions under which search of persons shall be
conducted.—
(1) When any officer duly authorised under section 42 is
about to search any person under the provisions of section 41,
section 42 or section 43, he shall, if such person so requires,
take such person without unnecessary delay to the nearest
Gazette Officer of any of the departments mentioned in section
42 or to the nearest Magistrate.
(2) If such requisition is made, the officer may detain the
person until he can bring him before the Gazetted Officer or the
Magistrate referred to in subsection (1).
(3) The Gazette Officer or the Magistrate before whom any
such person is brought shall, if he sees no reasonable ground
for search, forthwith discharge the person but otherwise shall
direct that search be made.
(4) No female shall be searched by anyone excepting a
female.
(5) When an officer duly authorised under section 42 has
reason to believe that it is not possible to take the person to be
searched to the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate without
the possibility of the person to be searched parting with
possession of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, or
controlled substance or article or document, he may, instead of
taking such person to the nearest Gazette Officer or Magistrate,
proceed to search the person as provided under section 100 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).
(6) After a search is conducted under sub-section (5), the
officer shall record the reasons for such belief which
necessitated such search and within seventy-two hours send a
copy thereof to his immediate official superior.”

8. Perusal of the impugned notice reproduced above prima

facie discloses that Police Inspector Sarojini Chauhan has herself at the

inception informed Applicant that she could subject herself to search

by the Police Inspector or if Applicant would like to have herself

searched by the nearest Magistrate / Gazetted Officer, then such

arrangement can be made. Therefore by implication, Police Inspector

5 of 8
1.BA.3393.2026.doc

Sarojini Chauhan has portrayed herself to be a Gazetted Officer for

undertaking search. It is such an act of the Police Inspector that prima

facie amounts to a breach of Section 50(1) of NDPS Act, 1985.

Attention is drawn to a decision of this Court in the case of Shaikh

Majhar Shaikh Anwar vs. The State of Maharashtra 1 which covers the

facts of the present case. Paragraph No.11 is reproduced hereunder for

reference:-

“11. In the case of Ashok Muktinath Pande2, this Court in an
identical situation in paragraph 3 has observed as follows:
"3) A bare perusal of the first information report
discloses that when the Police Inspector Shri Jagtap
at the inception itself informed the applicant that he
himself is a Gazetted Officer, the provisions of
Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act have been clearly
breached. The said alleged appraisal under Section
50(1) of the NDPS Act is contrary to the ratio laid
down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of
Rajasthan Vs. Parmanand and anr. reported in
(2014) 5 SCC 345 and in the case of Special Leave
to Appeal (Cri.) No.4590 of 2015 (Gurnam Singh @
Gagan vs. State of Punjab). the Division Bench of
this Court in the case of Dharmaveer Lekhram
Sharma Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in
2001(5) BCR (Cri.) 9 has also held in the similar
manner. This Court in Bail Application No.
1145/2015 in the case of Afaque Asif Sayyed Vs.
State of Maharashtra by following the ratio laid
down by the Supreme Court and the Division Bench
of this Court has observed that the moment the
Police Officer informs the applicant that he himself
is the Gazetted Officer, and then apprises the
accused with his right to be searched by other
Gazetted Office of Magistrate, the provisions of
Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act are violated. In view
of the above, the applicant has made out a case to
be released.”

9. Further, case of Applicant is covered by the decision of this

Court in the case of Chandrabhan Janardhan Yadav Vs. Station of
1 Criminal Bail Application No.3128 of 2025 decided on 08th August 2025
2 Bail Application No.2105 of 2015 Decided on 08.02.2016.

6 of 8
1.BA.3393.2026.doc

Maharashtra3 and Ashok Muktinath Pande vs. State of Maharashtra4.

10. Hence, in view of above prima facie observations and

findings and breach of provisions of Section 50(1) of NDPS Act, Bail

Application of Applicant is allowed subject to the following terms and

conditions:-

(i) Applicant is directed to be released from prison in

connection with C.R. No.916 of 2025 and Chargesheet

No.209 of 2026;

(ii) Applicant is directed to be released on bail on

furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- each with one or

two sureties of the like amount;

(iii) Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer at the

concerned Police Station once every month, on the first

Monday of the month between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00

p.m. until commencement of trial and thereafter shall

attend all dates of hearing before the Trial Court;

(iv) Applicant shall cooperate with the conduct of the trial

and remain present before the Trial Court on all dates,

unless specifically exempted. Applicants shall not seek

unnecessary adjournments. Any such conduct shall

entitle the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail;

3 Criminal Bail Application No.2254 of 2024 decided on 04th March 2025
4 Bail Application No.2105 of 2015 decided on 08th February 2016

7 of 8
1.BA.3393.2026.doc

(v) Applicant shall not leave the country without prior

permission of the Trial Court;

(vi) Applicant shall not influence any of the witnesses or

tamper with the evidence in any manner;

(vii) Applicant shall keep the Investigating Officer informed

of their respective current residential address and

mobile telephone numbers and shall forthwith inform

the Investigating Officer of any change in their

residential addresses or mobile telephone numbers, as

and when such change occurs; and

(viii)Any breach or infraction of any of the aforesaid

conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail granted to

the Applicants.

11. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are

limited for the purpose of granting bail only and I have not made any

observations on merits of the case. The trial shall be adjudicated on

the strength of the evidence led and strictly on its own merits being

uninfluenced with any of the prima facie observations made

hereinabove in this order.

12. Bail Application is allowed and disposed.

[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

Ajay
Digitally signed by
AJAY AJAY TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.09.30
11:45:07 +0530 8 of 8

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.