RAMIJA FARID SHAIKHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                                                         17-IA1234-2026INAPEAL353-2026.DOC

                                                                                   Santosh

                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                                 INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1234 OF 2026
                                                  IN
                                   CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 353 OF 2026

                      Ramija Farid Shaikh                                   ...Applicant
                                        Versus
                      The State of Maharashtra                            …Respondent

                      Ms. Suvidha Patil, for the Applicant-Appellant.
                      Smt. R. S. Tendulkar, APP for the State.
SANTOSH
SUBHASH                                                 CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
KULKARNI                                                DATED: 27th AUGUST, 2026
Digitally signed by
SANTOSH SUBHASH
KULKARNI
Date: 2026.08.31
19:31:50 +0530        Oral Order:-

                      1.   Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant.


                      2.   This is an application for suspension of sentence and to

                      enlarge the applicant on bail.


                      3.   By a judgment and order dated 16 th March, 2026 in NDPS

                      Special Case No.140/2014, the applicant came to be convicted

                      for an offence punishable under Section 20 read with Section

                      8(c) of the the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,

                      1985 (“the NDPS Act”) and was sentenced to suffer rigorous

                      imprisonment for a term of five years and to pay a fine of

                      Rs.30,000/- with default stipulation.



                                                       1/6
                                 17-IA1234-2026INAPEAL353-2026.DOC

4.   The gravamen of indictment against the applicant was that

on 25th April, 2024 pursuant to secret information, a raid was

conducted near a public toilet situated in front of Home Guard

Training Institution, N.S.S. Road, Narayan Nagar, Ghatkopar

(W), Mumbai. The applicant was found moving in suspicious

circumstances. The applicant was accosted. The applicant was

apprised of her right to be searched in the presence of a

Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. Personal search of the

applicant was conducted. In the bag, which the applicant was

carrying, 9 kg ganja was found. The contraband substance was

seized and samples were collected.


5.   After appraisal of the evidence, the learned Special Judge

was persuaded to return the finding of guilt. The applicant was

thus convicted and sentenced, as indicated above.


6.   The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that, the

proof of seizure of the contraband substance from the

possession of the applicant primarily rests on the evidence of

the police personnel. The panch witness Chamelidevi Jaituram

Gupta (PW7), who allegedly witnessed the search, recovery of

the contraband substance and seizure thereof, did not identify

the applicant as the person from whose possession the

contraband substance was allegedly recovered. The identity of

                              2/6
                                 17-IA1234-2026INAPEAL353-2026.DOC

the applicant as the person who was to arrive at the particular

spot also becomes suspect as the panch witness has deposed

that, the lady, from whose possession the contraband substance

was allegedly recovered, was wearing a burkha. That description

is at material variance with the pre-trial panchnama. Thus, the

applicant has a good case on merits.


7.   Moreover, since the applicant has been sentenced to suffer

rigorous imprisonment for five years and the applicant has been

in custody for more than five months, the sentence deserves to

be suspended lest the sentence may run out and the appeal

may not be finally decided, submitted the learned Counsel for

the applicant.


8.   The learned APP countered the submissions on behalf of

the applicant. Inviting the attention of the Court to the

deposition of PW Nos.1 to 6, the learned APP strenuously

submitted that, there is overwhelming evidence to sustain the

guilt of the applicant. Therefore, the prayer for suspension of

sentence does not deserve to be countenanced.


9.   I have perused the material on record. Since the applicant

was allegedly found in possession of an intermediate quantity of

the contraband substance, the interdict contained in Section 37

of the NDPS Act, does not come into play. From the perusal of
                              3/6
                                   17-IA1234-2026INAPEAL353-2026.DOC

the evidence on record, though the police personnel have fully

subscribed to the prosecution version yet the testimony of

Chamelidevi   Jaituram    Gupta      (PW7),   the   public   witness,

indicates that the question as to whether the contraband

substance was recovered from the possession of the applicant

may warrant consideration at the stage of final hearing of the

appeal.   Firstly, Chamelidevi Jaituram Gupta (PW7) did not

depose to the fact that the search and seizure were conducted at

the spot indicated in the seizure panchnama as deposed to by

the rest of the prosecution witnesses.        Chamelidevi Jaituram

Gupta (PW7) stated that, she was called in a police chowky and

the police seized ganja in her presence. Secondly, she expressed

her inability to identify the accused as the person from whom

the ganja was allegedly seized in her presence as the said lady

was wearing a burkha. Thus, the applicant can said to have

succeeded in making out a case that the applicant has a fair

chance of success in the appeal.


10.   At any rate, the sentence of five years can be termed to be

a short sentence.    The applicant has undergone sentence of

almost five months. Having regard to the large pendency of the

cases before this Court, it is extremely unlikely that this appeal

can be heard and decided finally in the near future. The

                               4/6
                                         17-IA1234-2026INAPEAL353-2026.DOC

applicant    is     a    woman.       Thus,    in    the    totality   of   the

circumstances, this Court is inclined to suspend the sentence

and enlarge the applicant on bail.

11.     Hence, the following order:

                                  :ORDER:

(i)     The application stands allowed.

(ii)     The substantive sentence imposed by the learned Special

         Judge in NDPS Special Case No.140/2014 arising out of

         CR No.227/2014 registered with Anti Narcotic Cell,

         Ghatkopar, stands suspended till the final disposal of the

         appeal.


(iii)    The applicant, Ramija Farid Shaikh, be enlarged on bail

         on furnishing a PR Bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- and a

         surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the

         learned Special Judge.


(iv)     The applicant shall mark her presence at the Anti

         Narcotic       Cell,   Ghatkopar,    on    the    first   Monday    of

         September and March of every year, till the disposal of

         the appeal.




                                      5/6
                                  17-IA1234-2026INAPEAL353-2026.DOC

(v)    The applicant shall furnish her residential address and

       cell phone number to the Investigating Officer and keep

       him updated in case of any change therein.


(vi)   The applicant shall attend the proceedings in this appeal,

       as and when directed.


                                        [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]




                               6/6