IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR N.D.P.S. CASES
AT GREATER MUMBAI
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 986 OF 2022
IN
C.R. No. 78/2022
Shamsirnissa Shabbirahmed Shaikh
Age- 50 years, Occ.- Vegetable seller
R/o : Room No.99, Sahayadri Chawl Committee,
Near Ganesh Temple, Indira Nagar
Mandal 30 Feet Road, Mankhurd, Mumbai.
…Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra
DCB CID ANC Bandra Unit
…Respondent
Appearance :Mr. Singh, Adv. for applicant/accused.
Mr. Rajput, APP for state/respondent.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR THE SPECIAL JUDGE
V. V. PATIL (C.R. NO. 44).
DATE
: 18th May, 2022
ORDER
The applicant/accused Shamsirnissa Shabbirahmed Shaikh has
moved present application for bail u/sec. 439 of Cr.P.C., who was
arrested on 23.04.2022 by officers of respondent in C.R. No.78/2022
for offence punishable u/sec. 8(c) r/w 22(b) of NDPS Act, 1985.
2.

It is the case of prosecution that on 23.4.2022 officers of
respondent, while on patrolling duty at Ganpati Mandir, Mankhurd,
Mumbau, they saw one lady i.e. applicant walking in suspicious
condition and she was having one white colour bag in her hand. Hence
she was intercepted. After search of the said white bag the officer found
Chlopheniramine
Maleate
and
Codeine
Phosphate
Syrup
and
Mocrcerex and 9 Codeine Phosphate syrup bottles. Same was seized
under panchnama and applicant was placed under arrest.
3.

The present applicant/accused has sought bail on the grounds
-2-
that she has been falsely implicated in this case and the quantity
recovered from the applicant is 9 bottles of Codeine Phosphate,
which is non-commercial quantity and therefore bar u/sec. 37 of
NDPS Act is not attracted. Applicant is lady of 50 years. She is a
permanent resident of Mumbai and not likely to abscond. She
undertakes to abide by any terms and condition as this Court may
deem fit. Hence she prayed for releasing her on bail.
4.

Application is opposed by the respondent by filing reply vide
Exh.2. It is submitted that applicant/accused was apprehended
with 9 bottles of Codeine Phosphate. During investigation she has
not co-operated the investigating machinery. Applicant is a habitual
offender. There are 5 cases registered against her, out of which 4
are under provisions of I.P.C. and 1 is under provisions of N.D.P.S.
Act. If applicant is released on bail, she may indulge in similar kind
of offence. She is also likely to abscond and may not be available
for trial. Hence application be rejected.
5.

Perused application and say. Heard both sides.

6.

It is submitted on behalf of applicant that allegedly 9 bottles
of Codeine Phosphate, are recovered from the applicant. Said
quantity is non-commercial quantity and bar under Sec. 37 of
NDPS Act is not applicable. Applicant be released on any terms as
court deems fit. As against this, it is submitted by Ld. APP that the
accused is a habitual offender and hence she is not entitled to grant
of bail. Hence bail application be rejected.
7.

Now, upon inspection of documents, it revealed that while
-3-
patrolling, present applicant was apprehended and 9 bottles of
Codeine Phosphate, were recovered from her possession which
came to be seized under panchanama.
8.

Now, the prosecution has not disputed that the recovery of 9
bottles of Codeine Phosphate from the applicant falls under
category of non-commercial quantity and therefore, stringent
provisions of sec. 37 of NDPS Act would not apply.
9.

Prosecution opposed the application mainly on the ground
that applicant is habitual offender and there are five cases, out of
which, four under IPC and one under NDPS Act registered against
the applicant and if she is granted bail, she may commit similar
offence. However, it is submitted on behalf of applicant that she is
not convicted for any offence. This fact is not disputed by Ld. APP
during course of argument. Hence I am of the opinion that
applicant cannot be denied bail merely because some cases are
registered against him, if otherwise she is entitled to be released on
bail.
10.

Now recovery has been completed and nothing is remained
to be recovered. As submitted on behalf of applicant, she is
permanent resident of Mumbai and not likely to abscond. Also, she
is ready to abide by all the terms and conditions imposed by the
Court. No purpose would serve by keeping the applicant behind the
bars. Hence I hold that applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Hence I proceed to pass following order :
-4-
ORDER
1. Bail Application no. 986/2022 is hereby allowed.
2. Applicant/accused Shamsirnissa Shabbirahmed Shaikh be
released in C.R.No. 78/2022 on executing P. R. Bond of Rs.30,000/(Rs. Thirty Thousand only) with one or two sureties in the like
amount.
3. Applicant/accused to attend the office of A.N.C. Bandra Unit on
every Thursday between 2.00 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. till filing of chargesheet.
4. Applicant/accused and her sureties shall provide their respective
mobile
numbers
and
correct
address
of
residence
alongwith names of two relatives with their mobile numbers and
addresses.
5. Applicant/accused shall produce the proof of her identity and
proof of residence at the time of executing the bail bond.
6. Applicant/accused shall not tamper with prosecution
witnesses/evidence in any manner and co-operate in early disposal
of trial.
7. Applicant/accused shall not commit similar offence while on
bail.
8. Ld. Advocate for applicant/accused prayed for allowing
provisional cash bail for period of eight weeks. Hence,
permission granted to furnish provisional cash bail of Rs.
30,000/- for period of eight weeks.
9. Accordingly, Bail Application no. 986/2022 is disposed off.

(V. V. PATIL)
Special Judge (N.D.P.S.),
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Date : 18.05.2022
Dictated on
Transcribed on
Signed on
: 18.05.2022
: 18.05.2022
: 18.05.2022
Gr. Mumbai.

-5-
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGEMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE
18.05.2022
TIME
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
5.30 p.m.

Mrs. S. W. Tuscano
Name of the Judge
HHJ Shri V. V. Patil
(CR No.44)
Date of Pronouncement of
Judgment/Order.
Judgment/order signed by P.O on
Judgment/order uploaded on
18.05.2022
18.05.2022
18.05.2022