Mumbai, April 9, 2025 (Thane News Bureau): The Special Judge for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Cases at Greater Mumbai has granted bail to Gauri Suraj Navlekar, a 78-year-old woman, who was arrested in connection with the seizure of 20.4 kg of ganja. The order, passed on September 27, 2023, by His Honour the Special Judge Shri R. R. Bhagwat in Court Room No. 44, allows Navlekar’s release upon furnishing a Personal Recognizance (PR) bond of ₹50,000 with one or more sureties of the same amount. The court cited significant procedural irregularities in the search and seizure process as key reasons for granting bail.

Navlekar was accused number three in C. R. No. 431/2023 registered at Andheri Police Station for offences punishable under sections 8(c) read with 20(b) (related to possession of cannabis) and 29 (criminal conspiracy) of the NDPS Act, 1985. She was arrested on August 25, 2023.

According to the prosecution’s case, on August 25, 2023, a police patrolling team near Kessar Bai Chawl in Andheri (East) found one man and four women, including the applicant, in suspicious circumstances carrying a white gunny bag. Upon inquiry, their evasive answers led to the calling of panchas and a subsequent search of the bag. The search revealed seven packets wrapped in brown cello tape and loose ganja, totaling 20 kg and 400 grams of the substance, which was seized. Accused number one was arrested at the scene, while Navlekar and the other three women were directed to appear at the police station later and were subsequently arrested.

During interrogation, Navlekar allegedly revealed the name of Shivlinga Dhangar as the supplier of the ganja, who was arrested on August 28, 2023. Dhangar, in turn, named Rajkumari Thakur as the main supplier, who was arrested on August 30, 2023, and reportedly confessed to supplying ganja to Dhangar for several months.

Advocate Dilip Mishra appeared for the applicant, arguing that Navlekar was falsely implicated. He pointed out that the FIR did not specify who possessed the gunny bag containing the contraband. He also raised serious concerns about the search and seizure procedure, stating that the search of the applicant and the gunny bag was conducted by raiding party members who were not empowered under the NDPS Act. Furthermore, he highlighted the lack of any mention of a seizure panchanama being prepared on the date of the incident. Advocate Mishra also invoked Section 437 of the Cr.P.C., which allows for consideration of bail for women. He emphasized that Navlekar was a permanent resident of Mumbai and willing to abide by any conditions imposed by the court.

Advocate Mishra heavily relied on observations made by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the cases of Parvez Haseen Khan v/s. State of Maharashtra and Sahil Jalauddin Ahmad v/s. State of Maharashtra, which held that mixing the contents of containers/packages for representative sampling is not permissible as per Standing Order. He further argued, citing Manish Kumar Boricha v/s. State of Maharashtra and Aarif Akram Shaikh v/s. State of Maharashtra, that a search conducted by an officer not empowered under Section 42(1) of the NDPS Act renders the search illegal. Additionally, he contended, relying on Gita Ravindra Patel v/s. State of Maharashtra and Veneela Tilak v/s. Shahasane, Assistant Collector of Customs and Ors., that the search of the female accused in the presence of male members violated their right to decency. He also pointed out a discrepancy in the weight of the seized ganja mentioned in the remand application (20 kg 400 grams) and the FIR (20 kg 100 grams). While acknowledging Navlekar’s criminal antecedents, he clarified that two cases related to consumption, one to a non-commercial quantity of narcotics, and the remaining 19 were under prohibition law. He presented citations where bail was granted to accused persons with criminal antecedents, urging the court to grant bail to his client.

Ld. APP Mr. Shankar Erande for the State argued that all five accused were found with the gunny bag during patrolling. He claimed that panchas were called and the mandate of Section 50 of the NDPS Act was followed. He contended that since the seizure was from the gunny bag, Section 50 was not applicable, and any alleged defects in that regard were irrelevant. He emphasized the commercial quantity of the seized ganja (20 kg 400 grams), attracting the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The APP also mentioned the ongoing search for a wanted accused named Akka and stated that accused number one had implicated Navlekar as a recipient of the contraband. He further pointed to the disclosure statement of Rajkumari leading to the tracing of Shivlinga and argued that Navlekar and Shivlinga were connected, as were the other female accused. He labeled the offense as serious and highlighted Navlekar’s three NDPS cases and 19 prohibition cases, portraying her as a habitual offender. He argued that a chain of involvement was established and prayed for the rejection of the bail application.

However, Special Judge Bhagwat, after reviewing the record and the FIR, noted the ambiguity regarding who possessed the gunny bag. The court observed that despite the police officers being aware of the potential presence of narcotic drugs in the bag, the procedure laid down under Section 42(1) of the NDPS Act was expected to be followed. The court pointed out that the search of the gunny bag was conducted by Head Constables Bhosale and Bhoite, and the contents were seen by Woman Police Constable Ambekar, none of whom were identified as empowered officers under Section 42(1) of the NDPS Act. This, the court stated, vitiated the procedure of search and seizure.

Furthermore, the court noted that a homogeneous mixture of the seized contraband was prepared without adhering to the requirements of Rule 10 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022, which mandates that seized packages and containers should be identical in size and weight with identical markings. The court agreed with the applicant’s counsel that the mixing of samples was not permissible as per Standing Order 1/89, citing the Parvez and Sahil cases. The court also concurred with the arguments regarding the search by non-empowered officers and the search of a female accused in the presence of male members, finding the ratio of the cited cases applicable.

Considering these procedural lapses, the court concluded that the accused had brought sufficient material on record to suggest they might not be guilty of the offense, thus lifting the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. While acknowledging Navlekar’s criminal antecedents, the court noted that most cases were under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, and there was no record of conviction in any of the offenses. Considering her residency in Mumbai and the possibility of securing her presence through stringent conditions, the court deemed her entitled to bail.

Consequently, Bail Application No. 806/2023 was allowed, subject to the following conditions:

1. Navlekar must execute a P. R. Bond of ₹50,000 with one or more sureties of the like amount.
2. She is required to attend Andheri Police Station every Monday between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. until the filing of the charge-sheet for the purpose of the ongoing investigation.
3. Navlekar and her sureties must provide their respective mobile numbers and correct residential addresses, along with the names, mobile numbers, and addresses of two relatives.
4. She must produce proof of identity and residence at the time of executing the Bail Bonds.
5. She is strictly prohibited from tampering with prosecution witnesses or evidence in any manner and must cooperate in the early disposal of the trial.
6. She must not commit any similar offense while on bail.
7. Upon the request of her advocate, Navlekar was granted provisional cash bail of ₹50,000 for the next four weeks from the date of the order.

The granting of bail in this case underscores the importance of strict adherence to the procedural safeguards outlined in the NDPS Act during search and seizure operations. The court’s decision highlights that even in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics and accused with prior criminal records, procedural irregularities can be a significant factor in the consideration of bail.