Bombay High Court

MOHD NADIR NABIULLAH SHAIKHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided: 4 March 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: R M JOSHI

Holding

The Court held that bail could not be granted as a prima facie case of a serious NDPS offence existed and procedural compliance issues were not fatal to the prosecution’s case.

Summary

The applicant, Mohd. Nandir Nabiullah Shaikh, was arrested on 6 May 2024 after police seized 57 bottles of codeine from a bag he was carrying, of which 43 were identified as contraband. He applied for regular bail, contending that the seizure violated the Standing Order on sample collection because only two bottles were taken as samples, that the inventory receipt was delayed, and that Section 50 of the NDPS Act was not complied with as he was not informed of his right to be searched before a magistrate. The State argued that the seizure was from the bag, not directly from the applicant, invoking the Supreme Court’s decision in Ranjan Kumar Chadha which held Section 50 inapplicable in such circumstances, and highlighted the applicant’s prior criminal record. The Court noted that the factual issue of sample adequacy, witness habit, and quantity of codeine are matters for trial, but found a prima facie case of serious drug offence and prior criminality. Consequently, the Court denied bail, stating that the applicant could re‑apply if the trial exceeds one year, and dismissed the bail application.

Issues considered

Whether the seizure and sample collection complied with the procedural requirements of the NDPS Act, particularly Section 50 and the Standing Order on sampling.
Whether the quantity of codeine seized constitutes a 'commercial quantity' under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Whether the applicant’s prior criminal history justifies denial of bail.
Whether the Supreme Court’s rulings in Ranjan Kumar Chadha and Hira Singh & Anr. are applicable to the present bail application.

Legislation cited

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act — s. 22(c), 37, 50, 8(c)

Subjects

bail
NDPS Act
codeine possession
Section 50
commercial quantity
prior convictions
sample adequacy
habitual witness

Judgment

                                                                                3-ba616-25.doc

       vai
                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
VASANT
ANANDRAO
IDHOL                           CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.616 OF 2025
Digitally signed by
VASANT
ANANDRAO
IDHOL
Date: 2026.03.10
13:13:12 +0530
                      Mohd.Nandir Nabiullah Shaikh              ...Applicant
                                V/s.
                      State of Maharashtra                      ...Respondent


                      Mr.Amol Thombre with Mr.Vishal Sarode for the Applicant.

                      Mr.H.J. Dedhia, APP for the Respondent – State.

                      Mr.Mahesh Anjanwad, PSI, Shivajinagar Police Station present in
                      Court.

                                       CORAM : R.M. JOSHI, J.
                                       DATE : 4TH MARCH, 2026.

                      P.C. :-

                      1.          This Application is for regular bail in connection with

                      C.R. No.371 of 2024 registered under Section 8(c) r/w 22(c) of

                      the NDPS Act with Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Mumbai. It is

                      the case of the prosecution that on the day of incident, the

                      officers of the Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Mumbai where on

                      patrolling duty and while doing so, they spotted the Applicant


                                                      1/5
                                                        3-ba616-25.doc

in suspicious manner. An enquiry was made with him and

during the search, 43 bottles of Codeine were found in a bag

carried by him with him. It was found the contraband drug.

Thereafter the samples were drawn. Inventory was made before

the Metropolitan Magistrate. The Applicant came to be arrested

on    6th May, 2024. On conclusion of the investigation,

chargesheet is filed.

2.        Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that there is

violation of the Standing Order issued in respect of drawing

samples and the percentage thereof. It his submission that out of

57 bottles of Codeine, only 2 bottles of Codeine were taken as

sample. It is further his arguments that there is doubt with

regard to sending of samples for inventory to the Metropolitan

Magistrate and the acknowledgment given by the Clerk of the

said Court, indicates that it was received on 3rd July, 2024, i.e.

the day on which the inventory was done. It is his further

submission that there is non-compliance of Section 50 of the

NDPS Act, as it was not specifically informed to the Applicant

about his right to be taken search before the Metropolitan


                               2/5
                                                       3-ba616-25.doc

Magistrate or the Gazetted Officer. It is his submission that the

endorsement given by the Applicant is not sufficient to show the

said compliance. He further argued     that the contents of the

bottles were 10 ML and therefore, it does not amount to the

commercial quantity in order to apply the provisions of Section

37 of the NDPS Act. Finally in support of his submissions, he

placed reliance on the order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of

this Court in Bail Application No.501 of 2025. Learned counsel

for the Applicant submits that the panch witness used herein this

case is habitual.

3.        Learned APP opposes the        Application. It is his

submission that the seizure of the contraband articles are not

from the person of the Applicant but from the bag which he was

carrying. It is submitted by relying upon the judgment of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ranjan Kumar Chadha vs.

State of Himachal Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 856 , that Section

50 would have no application in such case. Insofar as the

antecedents against the Applicant is concerned, it is pointed out

that there are about 7 crime registered against him. Learned


                              3/5
                                                        3-ba616-25.doc

counsel for the Applicant refutes the said contention by

submitting that there is only one crime, which is pending against

him and in another crime, acquittal has been recorded. Learned

APP placed reliance on the judgment      of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in case of Hira Singh & Anr. vs. Union of India & Anr.

(2020) 20 SCC 272.

4.        There is no dispute about the fact that there is seizure

of the contraband articles i.e. 57 bottles of Codeine from the bag

which was carried by the Applicant with him. Having regard to

the said fact, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Rajan Kumar (supra) squarely applies to the present case.

5.        Insofar as the other contentions with regard to the

inventory, the habituality of the pancha witnesses and the

quantity of the samples, the same are matter of trial. Suffice it

to say that prima-facie a case has been made out against him of

showing his involvement in serious crime, who also has criminal

history behind him.

6.        Having regard    to the afore stated facts, this Court

finds no reason to grant bail to the Applicant. It is however,


                               4/5
                                                         3-ba616-25.doc

clarified that if the trial does not get over within a period of one

year, it would be open for the Applicant to again revive his

request for bail.

7.        Application shall stands dismissed in above terms.


                                             (R.M. JOSHI, J.)




                                5/5

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…