Bombay High Court

KADAR SIRAJ NOORANIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided: 19 August 2026
Disposal: Allowed

Holding

Bail was granted because the applicant’s prolonged pre‑trial detention without charge framing violated Section 42, and Supreme Court precedents indicated that bail is appropriate in similar circumstances despite the commercial quantity involved.

Summary

The applicant, Kadar Siraj Noorani, was arrested in August 2024 after police seized 505 bottles of codeine phosphate based cough syrup from his residence, alleging offences under Sections 8(c) read with 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act. He has been in custody for nearly two years without charge framing or a completed investigation, and his counsel argued non‑compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act and the futility of further detention. The State contended that the quantity involved constituted a commercial amount, invoking the stringent bail conditions of Section 37. The Court noted the prolonged pre‑trial incarceration, the applicant’s prior minor drug offence, and Supreme Court precedents where similar cases resulted in bail. Consequently, the Court granted bail with strict conditions, emphasizing that the order does not prejudice the trial’s merits.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted in an NDPS case involving commercial quantity of codeine syrup under Sections 8(c), 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act.
Whether the trial court’s refusal to grant bail violated the provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act given the prolonged pre‑trial detention.
Whether the applicant’s prior drug conviction and the nature of the alleged offence justify the application of the stringent bail regime under Section 37.

Legislation cited

Drugs and Cosmetics Act
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 22(c), 29, 37, 42, 8(c)

Subjects

bail
NDPS Act
commercial quantity
pre‑trial detention
Section 42
Section 37
codeine phosphate
drug trafficking

Judgment

H.C.SHIV 25.BA877.26.DOC
Digitally
signed by
HEMANT
HEMANT CHANDERSEN
CHANDERSEN SHIV
SHIV Date:
2026.08.20
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
19:01:38
+0300 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO.877 OF 2026

Kadar Siraj Noorani …. Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra …Respondent

Ms. Munira Palanpurwala with Ms.Sumaiya Khan for the
Applicant.
Mr. V. A. Kulkarni, APP for the Respondent – State.
Mr. Nilesh Chavan, PSI, Mumbra police station present.

CORAM: SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
DATED : 19th AUGUST, 2026
P.C. :-

1. Ms.Palanpurwala, learned Counsel for the Applicant
tendered a statement about the criminal antecedents of the
Applicant. It is taken on record and marked “X” for identification.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

3. Present Application seeks release of the Applicant on bail
in Special NDPS Case No.58 of 2025, pending before the Court of
the learned Special Judge for NDPS Cases & Addl. Sessions Court,
Gt. Mumbai. Said case arising out of C.R. No.1821/2024 registered
with Mumbra police station, Thane for the offence punishable
under Sections 8(c) read with 22(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”) on the
report lodged by Deepak Udmale, Police Constable, Mumbra.

4. The prosecution case is that, on 26.08.2024, when the
police team of Mumbra police station headed by Mr.Pachorkar, PI,
was patrolling near Darufalah Masjid, team member Mr.Bhosale,
Page 1 of 5
H.C.SHIV 25.BA877.26.DOC

PSI received a secret information that the Applicant had stocked
Codeine Phosphate based cough syrup bottles in his room and he
was selling it. Immediately, the police team along with panchas
carried out a raid. The Applicant was present in the room. During
search of the room, total 505 bottles containing CBCS were found
in the possession of the Applicant. The said contraband bottles
were seized recording a detailed panchnama. Accordingly, the
aforesaid crime came to be registered and the Applicant was
arrested. On completion of the investigation, the police filed the
charge-sheet. The refusal of the bail by the trial Court led to filing
of this Bail Application.

5. Ms.Palanpurwala, learned Counsel for the Applicant
submitted that there is complete non-compliance with the
provision of Section 42 of the NDPS Act. Secondly, the Applicant
is behind bars for almost 2 years, but the case has not advanced.
Therefore, she urged to grant bail.

6. In reply, Mr.Kulkarni, learned APP submitted that there is
sufficient evidence against the Applicant that he had stocked the
contraband bottles to sell the same. This is a case of commercial
quantity. The Applicant has not shown that, prima facie, he is not
guilty of the aforesaid offence. Therefore, the rigors of Section 37
of the NDPS Act are applicable in this case.

7. I have considered these submissions. It is a matter of record
that the Applicant is behind bars for last two years.
Ms.Palanpurwala submitted that, yet, charge is not framed nor
the C.A. report is submitted before the trial Court. Therefore, the
trial of this case is not likely to conclude in foreseeable future. The
further incarceration of the Applicant will not serve any purpose.
Ms.Palanpurwala, learned Counsel states that the Applicant has a

Page 2 of 5
H.C.SHIV 25.BA877.26.DOC

criminal antecedent under the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics
Act,1940 and the said offence is punishable with maximum
punishment upto 1 year. Moreover, the Applicant is on bail in the
said case.

8. In Anandbhai Rajendrabhai Vaniya v. State of Gujarat,
Criminal Appeal No.859/2025 arising out of [SLP (Crl.)
No.17042/2024], as alleged, the appellant was driving the car
from which 995 bottles of RX Codeine Phosphate & Triprolidine
Hydrochloride syrup were seized. The appellant had figured in
eight cases, but, was discharged in five cases, acquitted in two
cases and in the other remaining case, he was on bail. Taking into
consideration the 17 months incarceration of the Applicant, the
nature of allegations levelled against him and, the possibility of the
trial not being concluded anytime soon, the Hon’ble Supreme
C9ourt released the appellant on bail.

9. In MD Ezaz Afzal & Anr. v. State of W.B SLA (Crl.)
12419/2024, the petitioners were arrested on 10.12.2023 as 1920
bottles of codeine phosphate syrup were seized from them. The
trial was not commenced. No witness was examined, though 14
were cited by the prosecution. Taking note of the quantity of
codeine phosphate syrup allegedly involved in the case and, the
period of incarceration (11 months) already undergone by the
Petitioners, the Hon’ble Supreme Court released them on bail.

10. In the wake of above, the Applicant may be released on bail.
Hence, following Order :-

(i) The Applicant – Kadar Siraj Noorani be released on
bail in aforesaid FIR in connection with C.R. No.1821 of
2024 registered with Mumbra police station, Thane for the

Page 3 of 5
H.C.SHIV 25.BA877.26.DOC

offence punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 22(c) and
29 of the NDPS Act, 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 Mumbra
police station, Thane on 1st and 16th 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 surrendered his passport before
the trial Court before his release on bail.

(v) 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.

(vi) 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.

(vii) The Applicant shall not enter in Mumbra area for one
year from the date of his release form jail till the conclusion
of the trial, except for marking his attendance at Mumbra
police station and attending the trial Court.

(viii) The Applicant shall not indulge in identical activities
for which he has been arraigned in this case.

Page 4 of 5
H.C.SHIV 25.BA877.26.DOC

(ix) 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.

11. Bail Application stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.

(SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)

Page 5 of 5

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…