Bombay High Court
AMINA B IBRAHIM KHANversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- NEELA KEDAR GOKHALE
Holding
The High Court granted bail to the applicant, enlarging it on conditions, as the quantity was intermediate, no antecedents existed, and charges had not been framed.
Summary
Amina B Ibrahim Khan was arrested on 27 August 2025 after police intercepted her on a train and recovered 15.594 kg of Ganja from her bags, invoking Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the NDPS Act and Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Her bail application was rejected by the Special Judge, prompting an appeal to the Bombay High Court. The counsel for the applicant argued that the quantity was only intermediate, that the substance may not qualify as ‘Ganja’ under the Act, and that she had been in custody for several months without charges being framed. The State contended that electronic evidence linked her to drug peddling but acknowledged her clean antecedent record. The High Court, noting the intermediate quantity, lack of antecedents, and prolonged pre‑charge detention, relied on a Supreme Court precedent that each accused’s share of the seized narcotic must be considered separately, and consequently granted bail with standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the quantity of Ganja recovered from the applicant qualifies as intermediate or commercial under the NDPS Act.
- Whether the substance seized can be legally defined as ‘Ganja’ within the meaning of the NDPS Act.
- Whether the applicant’s prolonged detention without framing of charges warrants bail.
- Whether the applicant’s clean antecedent record influences the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 3(5)
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 20(b)(ii)(C), 29, 8(c)
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- Ganja
- intermediate quantity
- pre‑charge detention
- high court
- criminal procedure
Judgment
Shivgan 9-BA-646-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 646 OF 2026
Amina B Ibrahim Khan …Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra …Respondent
Ms. Zehra Charania, with Ayaz Khan, Dilip Mishra and Mallika
Sharma, for the Applicant.
Ms. Anuja Sunil Gotad, APP for the Respondent-State.
Mr. Ashok Holkar, PSI attached to Crime Branch, present.
CORAM DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.
DATED: 17th FEBRUARY 2026
PC:-
1. By this Application, the Applicant seeks her enlargement
on bail in connection with C.R. No. 922 of 2025 dated 27 th
August 2025 registered with the Thane Railway Police Station,
District: Mumbai Railway for the offences punishable under
Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) and
Section 3(5)of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’).
Page 1 of 7
th
17 February 2026
Shivgan 9-BA-646-2026.doc
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, while the
Police Officials were patrolling in the reserved coaches of
Train No. 18030, which reached the Thane Railway Station,
the demeanor of the Accused was found to be suspicious.
Hence, they were intercepted. After following due process of
law, four bags, which they were carrying were searched. Upon
search, two bags in possession of the Applicant led to the
recovery of 7.464 kilograms and 8.13 kilograms of Ganja
respectively aggregating to 15.594 kilograms of Ganja. Two
bags of Co-accused namely, Sabera Khan led to the recovery of
11.096 kilograms and 6.233 kilograms of Ganja respectively
totaling to 17.329 kilograms of Ganja. Thus, the contraband
was seized and the Applicant was arrested on 27 th August
2025.
3. The Applicant filed an application seeking bail before
the Special Judge (NDPS), Thane. However, by order dated 9 th
December 2025, her bail application came to be rejected.
Page 2 of 7
th
17 February 2026
Shivgan 9-BA-646-2026.doc
Hence, the Applicant is before this Court for the reliefs as
prayed.
4. Ms. Zehra Charania, learned counsel appearing for the
Applicant, submits that the Ganja recovered from the present
Applicant is of intermediate quantity. She further submits that
the Applicant is in custody since August 2025 and till date,
charges are not framed. She also submits that the substance
alleged to have been recovered from the Applicant does not
fall within the definition of ‘Ganja’ under the provisions of the
NDPS Act. The FIR and the Seizure Panchanama also do not
reflect any description of the purported contraband as
consisting of flowering or fruiting tops, segregated from
leaves, seeds and stalks. Thus, in absence of any such
description in the Panchanama or the FIR, there is nothing to
establish that the substance seized by the officials was in fact
Ganja. Ms. Charania also places reliance on the order of the
Supreme Court dated 13th December 2023 passed in Special
Page 3 of 7
th
17 February 2026
Shivgan 9-BA-646-2026.doc
Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.10734 of 2023. She thus, submits
that the Applicant be released on bail.
5. Ms. Anuja Gotad, learned APP representing the State in
the matter, submits that there is ample material on record in
the form of CDRs and bank transactions to show that the
Applicant was involved in drug peddling. However, she
concedes that there are no antecedents against the present
Applicant. She thus, resists the Bail Application.
6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties and perused the record with their assistance.
7. Admittedly, the quantity of Ganja recovered from the
Applicant is aggregating to 15.594 kilograms, which is below
the commercial quantity. The Applicant does not have any
antecedents against her. Additionally, the Applicant is
incarcerated since August 2025 without charges being framed
as on date. I have also gone through the order passed by the
Supreme Court relied upon by Ms. Charania. The Supreme
Page 4 of 7
th
17 February 2026
Shivgan 9-BA-646-2026.doc
Court has observed that even though there were two accused
found in possession of Ganja, the quantity held by each
Accused has to be considered separately.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am inclined to
enlarge the Applicant on bail. It is accordingly ordered as
under:-
ORDER
i) The Applicant be enlarged on bail, on
executing PR Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with
one or two local sureties in the like amount;
ii) The Applicant shall attend the Trial Court
concerned on each and every date unless exempted
by the orders of the Trial Court concerned;
iii) The Applicant shall also attend the Police
Station concerned once in a month on first Monday
between 11:00 a.m. to 02:00 p.m. till the charges are
framed;
Page 5 of 7
th
17 February 2026
Shivgan 9-BA-646-2026.doc
iv) If the Applicant has not deposited her
passport, if any, the Applicant shall deposit the same
with the Police Station concerned;
v) The Applicant shall not leave India, without
the permission of the Trial Court;
vi) The Applicant shall not tamper or attempt to
influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or
any person concerned with the case;
vii) The Applicant shall inform her latest place of
residence and contact number immediately after
being released and / or change of residence or
mobile details, if any, from time to time to the Court
seized of the matter and to the Investigating Officer
of the Police Station concerned;
viii) The Applicant to co-operate with the conduct
of the trial;
Page 6 of 7
th
17 February 2026
Shivgan 9-BA-646-2026.doc
ix) Any infraction of the aforesaid conditions
shall entail cancellation of bail.
9. The Bail Application is allowed in the above terms and
is accordingly disposed of.
10. It is made clear that the observations made herein are
prima facie and are confined to this Application and the
learned Trial Judge to decide the case on its own merits,
uninfluenced by the observations made herein.
(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J)
Digitally
signed by
SHAMBHAVI
SHAMBHAVI NILESH
NILESH SHIVGAN
SHIVGAN Date:
2026.02.18
14:46:45
+0530
Page 7 of 7
th
17 February 2026
Checking your session…