BA 340.24
1
MHCC020025102024
IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR N.D.P.S. CASES
AT GREATER MUMBAI
CRI. BAIL APPLICATION NO. 340/2024
IN
C. R. NO. 153 OF 2024
Meherbano Mohd. Ayub
Siddiqui @ Sikandari
Age : 59 years, Occu. : Housewife
R/o : R. No.452, HW,
Maharashtra Nagar,
Slaughter House Compound,
Bandra (West), Mumbai – 400 050.
V/s.

… Applicant/accused
The State of Maharashtra
(Bandra Police Station)
… Respondent
Appearance :Mr. Sherali Khan, Adv. for applicant.
Mr. Shankar Erande, APP for respondent/State.
CORAM : THE SPECIAL JUDGE
B. Y. PHAD (C.R.44)
DATE :
21.02.2024
ORDER
The applicant Meherbano Mohd. Ayub Siddiqui @
Sikandari, has filed the present application under Section 439 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the grant of regular bail in
BA 340.24
2
relation to Crime No. 153/2024 registered under Sections 8(c) read
with 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985 with Bandra Police Station.
2.

In short, according to the applicant she has not committed
any crime and she has been falsely implicated in this case. Nothing has
been recovered from her. There is clear violation of sec. 50 of the
NDPS Act since her search is taken by WPC , who was not authorised to
take personal search of the applicant.
antecedent and well rooted in the society.

The applicant has clean
She is ready to furnish
surety and abide by the conditions of the bail bonds. Therefore, she
seeks release on bail.
3.

The application has been objected by the prosecution by
filing reply at Exh.2. It is contended that while police staff of Bandra
Police Station were on patrolling duty on 30.01.2024, at about 10.30
am, the applicant/accused was found standing in suspicious condition
at Qureshi Ngar, Darga Galli, Bandra (West). She was possessing bag,
which she was
trying to hide
with her Punjabi dress. Therefore,
applicant was accosted and apprehended. On enquiry as to contents in
the bag possessed by her, she gave evasive answers. Therefore, API
Jagtap informed PI Marathe who apprised the ACP Pradeep about said
information and as per directions of superiors, action was taken.
Panchas were called and sealing and labeling material was brought.
The applicant was appraised of her right u/sec. 50 of the NDPS Act to
which the applicant declined to avail the same. Thereafter, as per
instructions from API Jagtap, WPC Ghadge took personal search of the
applicant and in her personal search, she was found possessing redish
colour substance having strong smell. PI Gaikwad asked the applicant
about the said substance to which applicant replied that it was
Mephedrone. Thereafter, PI Gaikwad physically
inspected the said
substance and found that it was drug MD, which came to be 54 gms.

BA 340.24
3
after weighing. Accordingly, the contraband was seized on the spot by
following procedure. The offence was registered against the applicant
and she came to be arrested. It is contended that investigation is
ongoing and it is necessary to trace out who the applicant is associated
with accused persons. There is likelyhood that the applicant is having
connections with inter State and International Drug Mafiyas.
Therefore, deep investigation is required. Hence prayed for rejecting
the bail application.
4.

Ld. counsel for the applicant submits that the entire case is
false and baseless. Necessary procedure as contemplated u/sec. 50 of
the NDPS Act is not followed by the police while taking alleged search
of the applicant. As to the Notification of the Home Department of
Maharashtra Government dated 14.11.1985, all officers of and above
the rank of Head Constable are empowered to take personal search of
the suspect. However, in the case in hand, admittedly, WPC is the
below rank of Head Constable, who took personal search of the
applicant. Therefore, basic provision u/sec. 42 & 50(1) of the NDPS
Act has been violated by the police. Therefore, applicant is entitled to
be released on bail. In this regard, Ld. Counsel for the applicant has
relied on following rulings :
i. Najma Abdul Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra in Cr. B.A. No.
1311/2012 decided on 23.10.2012.
ii. Aarfin Salman Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra in B.A. No.
2907/2023 decided on 07.12.2023.
iii. Henna Bharat Shah vs. State of Maharashtrain B.A. no.1051/2016
and Shahid Farid Choudhary vs. State of Maharashtra in B.A. No.
1049/2016 both decided on 24.04.2017
iv. Veneela Tilak vs. Asst. Collector of Customs, 1997 ALL MR (Cri) 368.
5.

Ld. Adv. for the applicant further submits that the applicant
is suffering from feminine ailments and prayed for allowing the
application.

BA 340.24
6.

4
On the other hand, learned APP, Mr. Shankar Erande
submits that offence is serious. 54 gms. MD has been seized from the
conscious possession of the applicant. Deep investigation in the matter
is required. Therefore, bail application may be rejected.
7.

Considering the submissions of both sides and the fact that
personal search of the applicant was taken by Woman Police Constable,
who was not authorised being below the rank of Police Head Constable,
in my opinion, the police have violated the basic provisions u/sec. 42 &
50 of the NDPS Act since the search of the applicant is not taken by
authorised person. Therefore, the applicant cannot be connected with
the alleged recovery of contraband which is done without following
proper basic procedure. Therefore, in my opinion, the applicant is
entitled to be released on bail under stringent conditions. Hence the
order.
ORDER
1. Bail Application No. 340/2024 is hereby allowed.
2. The applicant/accused Meherbano Mohd. Ayub Siddiqui @
Sikandari, arrested in Crime No. 153/2024 registered u/sec. 8(c) r/w
20(B) of the NDPS Act with Bandra Police Station, shall be released on
bail upon executing a personal bond of Rs. Sixty Thousand, along with
one or two solvent surety bond/bonds of the said amount, to ensure
her appearance at all required times during the legal proceedings,
subject to the following conditions:
a.

The applicant/accused is directed to report to Bandra
Police Station every Sunday between 10.00 a.m. to 11.00 a.m., till
filing of final report without fail.
b.
jurisdiction
The applicant/accused is prohibited from leaving the
of
Mumbai
without
investigating officer or the Court.

explicit
permission
from
the
BA 340.24
c.

5
The applicant/accused is strictly prohibited from making
any form of contact with co-accused, witnesses, or any individuals
directly associated with the case. The applicant/accused shall not
tamper with any evidence or documents related to the case.
d.

The applicant/accused must maintain a stable residence at
her current address in Bandra, Mumbai, and is required to inform the
court and the investigating officer of any change in her residential
address. The accused shall furnish her active mobile number to the
Investigating Officer and shall also immediately report any change in
her mobile number.
e. The applicant/accused must not interfere with the ongoing
investigation and shall comply fully with law enforcement in their
investigation.
f.

The applicant/accused shall surrender her passport, if any,
before the Investigating Officer within a week and, if she does not
possess any passport, she shall file an affidavit to that effect before the
Investigating Officer.
g. The applicant/accused is prohibited from engaging in activities
that might be related to the offense registered.
h. The applicant/accused must comply with all reasonable
directions made by law enforcement agencies or investigating officers
related to the case.
i. As per para No.12(1) of the Criminal Manual, the
applicant/accused before release on bail shall furnish the list of three
blood relatives with their detail residential addresses and also the
addresses of their place of work, if any, and shall also produce
documentary proofs showing the correctness of details produced by her.
2.

Failure to adhere to any of these conditions will result in the
BA 340.24
6
immediate revocation of bail and may lead to further legal
consequences.

Date : 21.02.2024
Dictated on
Transcribed on
Checked on
Signed on
( B. Y. PHAD )
Special Judge (N.D.P.S.),
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay (C.R. NO.44)
: 21.02.2024
: 22.02.2024
: 23.02.2024
: 29.02.2024
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGEMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE
02.03.2024
TIME
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
11.10 a.m.

Mrs. S. W. Tuscano
Name of the Judge
HHJ Shri B. Y. Phad
(CR No.44)
Date of Pronouncement of
Judgment/Order.
Judgment/order signed by P.O on
21.02.2024
Judgment/order uploaded on
02.03.2024
29.02.2024