LAKHAN VEDMANI DUBEYversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

P.H. JAYANI                                          07 BA572.2026.DOC


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

              BAIL APPLICATION NO. 572 OF 2026

Lakhan Vedmani Dubey                                   …. Applicant
      V/s.
The State of Maharashtra                             …Respondent




Ms. Mallika Sharma a/w. Mr. Ayaz Khan and Ms. Zehra Charania
for the Applicant.

Mr. V.A. Kulkarni, APP for the Respondent – State.

Mr. Vishal Tejale attached to Crime Branch, Unit – 11, Kandivali,
present.


                          CORAM: SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
                          DATED : 11th AUGUST, 2026

P.C. :-

1.       Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record.
Mr. Kulkarni, learned APP tendered photocopy of an entry in
Khabar Register, provided by Mr. Tejale, PSI attached to DCB,
CID, Unit – 11, Mumbai, which is claimed to be the compliance
with Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). It is taken on record and
marked as Exhibit “X”.

2.       The Applicant seeks his release on bail in Special Case
No.2120/2025 pending on the file of the learned Special Judge,
Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai, arising out of C.R.No.27/2025
registered with DCB, CID, Unit-11, Mumbai, originally at C.R.No.



                               Page 1 of 6
P.H. JAYANI                                           07 BA572.2026.DOC



266/2025 with Kandivali Police Station, Mumbai (E) for the
offence punishable under Sections 8(c), 29 and 22(c) of NDPS Act.

3.       The prosecution case is that on 12.04.2025, informant Mr.
Kadam, PHC received a secret information that the Applicant
would come in the area of Kandivali West Railway Station to sell
narcotic drug ‘MD’. The informant conveyed that information to
his superior Mr. Nivatkar, Sr.P.I., who, at 13.25 hours, constituted
a team of police headed by Mr. Kakade, PI and authorised to effect
the raid. At about 16.40 hours, the police team alongwith two
panchas went to Kandivali West Railway Station and lay in
ambush there, near Hotel Sarovar. But the Applicant did not come
there. After some time the informer told that the Applicant would
come at 21.30 hours, near Sunshine Shop, in front of Shatabdi
Hospital, S.V. Road. The team went there and laid a trap. The
Applicant came there alongwith one person named Saifulla Abdul
Shaikh. Seeing the police the two tried to run away and while
running the Applicant threw a plastic bag which was in his
possession. Police chased and apprehend them. On enquiry, the
Applicant and his associate gave their names. Further, police
followed the provisions of Section 50 of NDPS Act. On further
enquiry, the Applicant told that the said bag was containing drug
‘MD’ and led the police and the panchas to the spot where he had
thrown that bag. The bag was lying there. Police searched that bag
in the presence of the panchas. It found containing 88 grams of
‘MD’. It was seized recording a panchanama. The Applicant
revealed that he had procured the ‘MD’ from co-accused Sajju @
Kamran Khan. However, Saifulla Abdul Shaikh was not involved
in the crime. Accordingly, aforesaid crime came to be registered on
the Report lodged by Mr. Kadam and the Applicant was arrested.



                              Page 2 of 6
P.H. JAYANI                                            07 BA572.2026.DOC



Completion of investigation, led to filing of charge-sheet. The trial
Court refused the bail to the Applicant.

4.       Ms. Sharma, learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted
that there is non-compliance of Section 42 of NDPS Act.
Considering the material on record, it cannot be accepted that the
grounds of arrest were furnished to the Applicant as required in
Section 47 of BNSS. She submits that although the Applicant has
criminal antecedents; he is on bail in the said cases. Since there is
non-compliance of the aforesaid provisions of laws, therefore, the
antecedents will not come in the way of exercising discretion of
bail in favour of the Applicant. Therefore, she urged to grant bail.

5.       In reply, Mr. Kulkarni, learned APP states that there is
proper compliance with Section 42 of NDPS Act before effecting
the raid, search and seizure. He contended that, the search and
seizure action was carried out in public place which is permissible
under of Section 43 of NDPS Act. Therefore, even if for the sake of
argument it is assumed that the provisions of Section 42 are not
complied with, it will not make the search and seizure of the
contraband illegal. He submitted that the grounds of arrest were
furnished to the Applicant in writing as required in law. Therefore,
the Applicant is not entitled for bail.

6.       I have considered these submissions. On perusal of the
record including the WhatsApp messages and the images of the
contraband shared on WhatsApp, I found that, there is a prima
facie case against the Applicant that at the relevant time he was
found in possession of the contraband.

7.       Now let us deal with the submissions by Ms. Sharma. The
Khabar (Exh.-X) indicates that before going for the raid, the secret

                               Page 3 of 6
P.H. JAYANI                                            07 BA572.2026.DOC



information was recorded, conveyed to the superior and
authorization from the superior was obtained as required under
Section 42 of NDPS Act. However, Ms. Sharma contended that,
the Khabar was not part of charge-sheet and it is afterthought.
Additionally, report about the alleged search and seizure action
was not submitted within 72 hours, as required under sub-Section
(2) of Section 42. Therefore, she stoutly submitted that it cannot
be maintained that the provisions of Section 42 were complied
with. This submission, at the first blush, looks attractive, but,
cannot be accepted.

8.       In this regard, Section 43 of NDPS Act is relevant. It
provides that any officer of any of the departments mentioned in
section 42 may seize in any public place or in transit, any narcotic
drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance in respect
of which he has reason to believe an offence punishable under this
Act has been committed and, detain and search any person whom
he has reason to believe to have committed an offence punishable
under this Act and, if such person has any narcotic drug or
psychotropic substance or controlled substance in his possession
and such possession appears to him to be unlawful, arrest him and
any other person in his company.

9.       As evident from record, since the Applicant did not come at
the first location, therefore, the police went to the another location
as told by the informer. There, when the Applicant arrived, police
apprehended him and effected the search and seizure of the
contraband. These facts prima facie indicates that, while going
from one location to another, the police could not comply with
Section 42 and therefore, in an exceptional situation falling under
Section 43, they effected the search and seizure of the contraband.


                               Page 4 of 6
P.H. JAYANI                                             07 BA572.2026.DOC



That apart, considering the facts and circumstances of the case in
its entirety, I am of the view that the non-compliance with the
provisions of Section 42 is a question of fact to be decided at the
trial.

10.      This takes me to the second submission that the grounds of
arrest were not furnished to the Applicant. To substantiate this
assertion, Ms.Sharma invited my attention to two communications
under Section 47 of BNSS. One mentions that the Applicant was
apprehended near Sunshine Shop, in front of Shatabdi Hospital
and another, state that it was at Nagori Hotel, in front of Shatabdi
Hospital. However, this is not a major discrepancy. Because, both,
Sunshine Shop and Nagori Hotel were located in front of Shatabdi
Hospital. Ms. Sharma also challenged these communications
asserting that the alleged signature of the Applicant on the 1 st
communication towards its acknowledgement is forged. However,
this claim is completely baseless and incorrect. Because, the said
signature is clearly matching with the Applicant’s signature on his
Affidavit about the criminal antecedents.

11.      Undisputedly, the offence pertains to possession of
commercial quantity of the contraband. The Applicant could not
point out that prima facie, he is not guilty of the alleged offence.
There are two criminal antecedents against the Applicant of
committing similar offence in quick succession, i.e., 2023 and
2024. This conduct indicates that if bail is granted, the Applicant
is likely to commit a similar offence.

12.      In the wake of above, the Applicant is not entitled for bail.
The Application stands rejected accordingly, and disposed of.




                                Page 5 of 6
                    P.H. JAYANI                                          07 BA572.2026.DOC



                             As an abundant caution, it is clarified that the aforesaid
                    observations are prima facie in nature and confined to the
                    determination of entitlement for bail. Said observations shall not
                    be construed as an expression of this Court about the merits of the
                    case. The trial Court shall decide the said case on its own merit
                    without getting influenced by any of the said observations.



       Digitally
       signed by
                                                    (SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)
       PREETI
PREETI HEERO
HEERO JAYANI
JAYANI Date:
       2026.08.17
       18:35:42
       +0530




                                                   Page 6 of 6