Bombay High Court
Maheswaran Thondappa Rajgopal vs Union Of India And Anr on 25 March, 2026
2026:BHC-AS:14456
ba5216-24.doc
vai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
VASANT
ANANDRAO
IDHOL CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.5216 OF 2024
Digitally signed
by VASANT
ANANDRAO Maheswaran Thondappa Rajgopal, )
IDHOL
Date: 2026.03.26
Aged : 70 Years, R/o -112, )
14:40:39 +0530 Poonamalle High Road, Purasawakam, )
Chennai, Tamil Nadu - 600 084 )
(presently in Judicial Custody at )
Taloja Prison) ) ...Applicant
V/s. )
)
1. Union of India, )
(Directorate of Revenue Intelligence )
(F.No.DRI/MZU/INT-42/2023) )
)
2. State of Maharashtra ) ..Respondents
Mr.Anand Grover, Senior Counsel with Mr.Ayaz Khan, Ms.Tripti
Gandon, Adv.Zehra Charania and Mallika Sharma for the
Applicant.
Ms.Megha S. Bajoria, SPP for Respondent No.1.
Ms.Shilpa K. Gajare, APP for the State - Respondent.
CORAM : R.M. JOSHI, J.
DATE OF RESERVE : 18TH MARCH, 2026.
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25TH MARCH, 2026.
ORAL ORDER:-
1. Applicant seeks regular bail in connection with C.R.
1/26
::: Uploaded on – 26/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 26/03/2026 21:20:42 :::
ba5216-24.doc
No. DRI/MZU/NS-II/INT-42/2023 of the offences under Sections
21(c) r/w 8(c), 23(c) r/w 8(c), 25 r/w 8(c),27A r/w 8(c), 28
r/w 8(c), 29 r/w 8(c)and 30 r/w 8(c) of Narcotic Drug
Psychotropic Substances Act (for short ‘the Act’).
2. On 19.03.2023 intelligence was gathered that the
Applicant is arriving at Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International
Airport along with contraband. A note of the said intelligence
was taken by the Airport Intelligence Unit (for short ‘AIU’). On
arrival of the Applicant, he was intercepted and along with his
bags was taken to the office of AIU. In the search of his bags, two
pouches containing yellowish power were found. Both pouches
were emptied into one transparent self-sealing pouch and it was
packed, sealed and seized under panchnama.
3. Applicant was issued notice under Section 67 of the
Act and was also directed not to leave without permission of the
Authority. It is claimed that in the said statement, Applicant
accepted that he was to deliver the said contraband to a person
in the room of Hotel Silver Elite. On the basis of the said
information, Officer concerned reached to the hotel and
2/26
::: Uploaded on – 26/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 26/03/2026 21:20:42 :::
ba5216-24.doc
intercepted Accused No. 2. From his person, a sum of
Rs.1,58,000/- and passport were recovered. Subsequently, house
search of Accused No. 2 was done, in which 98 grams of cocaine
and 103 grams of heroin was found. Applicant and co-accused
were arrested on 20.03.2023. An application under Section
52(A) of the Act is made before the Magistrate on 19.04.2023
and thereafter samples were sent to FSL for testing. Sample `A1′
and `C1′ tested negative for heroin, morphine, cocaine,
amphetamine and methamphetamine and `B1′ tested positive for
cocaine. Thereafter with the permission of the Court both
samples were sent for retesting. Sample duplicate of `D1′ was
tested positive for diacetylmorphine and `C1′ duplicate was the
cutting agent comprising phenacetin, lidocaine and caffeine. The
inventory panchnama was drawn on 17.08.2022 and samples
were sent to analysis on 18.08.2022. On completion of
investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed before the Special
Court and case is numbered as Special Case No. 1471/2023.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Applicant
submits that mixing of contraband with respect to alleged
3/26
::: Uploaded on – 26/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 26/03/2026 21:20:43 :::
ba5216-24.doc
seizure at the Airport attributed to the Applicant is illegal. It is
his contention that in order to find out the narcotic substance,
carried /possessed by an accused, it is absolutely necessary to
keep separate two different contrabands in case seized and the
mixing thereof is wholly impermissible under the NDPS Rules
and the mandate of various Courts. In this context, it is his
submission that there are two CA reports running contrary to
each other as the initial reports found negative for the seizure at
Airport for 9.98 grams of heroin and from the house of Applicant
to the extent of 101 grams of heroin. The second report however
indicates positive report for seizure done at Airport but negative
report for the seizure done from the premises. It is submitted
that considering the said inconsistencies, benefit thereof must go
to the accused at this stage.
5. It is further argued that the crime report number is
appearing in the written communication under Section 50 as
well as statement recorded u/s 67 of the Act. According to him,
since the crime has been registered at later point of time,
question of appearance of the same would not arise. This, as per
4/26
::: Uploaded on – 26/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 26/03/2026 21:20:43 :::
ba5216-24.doc
his submission, creates serious doubt about genuineness of case
and also the manner in which the entire seizure has been done.
He further argued that this is a case of illegal detention of the
Applicant and on this count alone, he is entitled to be enlarged
on bail. It is argued that the seizure panchnama at the Airport
started at 06.30 hours on 19.03.2023 and completed at 10.30
hours and from that time onward the Applicant was in custody of
the Respondent. It is his submission that preparation of arrest
memo at 07.30 hours on 28.03.2023 is inconsequential. It is thus
argued that production of Applicant before the magistrate on
20/03/2023 at 04:45 pm is not within twenty-four hours. It is
contended that Applicant was produced beyond 24 hours from
the time of his liberty being curtailed and as such, detention of
the Applicant being illegal and therefore he deserves to be
enlarged on bail. To support his submissions, he placed reliance
on following judgments:
(i) Niranjan Singh and Anr. Vs. Prabhakar Rajaram
Kharote and Ors., (1980) 2 SCC 559.
(ii) Directorate Of Enforcement Vs. Deepak Mahajan
5/26
::: Uploaded on – 26/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 26/03/2026 21:20:43 :::
ba5216-24.docand Anr., (1994) 3 SCC 440.
(iii) Directorate Of Enforcement Vs. Subhash Sharma,
2025 INSC 141.
(iv) Eepu Ramana, and Anr. Vs. The Senior
Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue
Intelligence, Criminal Petition No. 5439 of 2024
(Andhra Pradesh High Court).
(v) The Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of
Revenue Intelligence Vs. Eepu Ramana and Anr., SLP
(Crl.) No(s). 10267/2025.
6. It is further argued that there is non-compliance of
mandatory provision of Section 50 of the Acct that when the
Applicant exercised his right to be searched before Gazetted
Officer, the DRI Officer called Deputy Director of their own
department and this, according to the Counsel, is in violation of
Section 50 of the Act. It is contended that Deputy Director is not
an independent Gazetted Officer. It is also argued that the
written notice/letter under Section 50 of the Act does not bear
the signature of panch witness and as such, there is reason to
6/26
::: Uploaded on – 26/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 26/03/2026 21:20:43 :::
ba5216-24.doc
believe that this letter has been concocted. It is also claimed that
statement of the Applicant recorded under Section 67 of the Act
is exculpatory. According to him, statement does not reflect that
the Applicant had knowledge of concealment of the contraband
in the baggage and as such it cannot be held that this is a case of
conscious possession of the contraband by the Applicant. It is
argued that in absence of any evidence to connect the Applicant
with the alleged seizure at the instance of Accused No. 2, any
recovery from the said accused cannot be attributed to the
Applicant. Finally, it is argued that Applicant is aged about 70
years and in January, 2023 he had suffered acute stroke multi
embolic infarcts and complete thrombosis of distal C6 vertebral
level. It is claimed that Applicant is suffering from formation of
the clots which would result in the blockage of blood flow to the
brain and he was required to rush to the hospital and was
treated then. He placed reliance on visit note of Maharashtra
State Human Rights Commission to Taloja prison, highlighting
the condition of prisoners and lack of essential facilities there.
Reference is made to an order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case
7/26
::: Uploaded on – 26/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 26/03/2026 21:20:43 :::
ba5216-24.doc
of Dr. P. Varavarao Vs National Investigation Agency and Anr.,
SLP (Crl.) No. 5913 of 2022. On these amongst other
contentions, he seeks bail. To support his overall submission
reliance is placed on following case laws:
(i) Sami Ullaha Vs. Superintendent, Narcotic Central
Bureau, 2008 (16) SCC 471.
(ii) Wajid Ali @ Tinku Vs. State of Rajasthan, SLP
(Crl.) No. 7049/ 2025.
(iii) Augestin Sunderraj Nadar Vs. Union Of India and
Anr. 2025: BHC- AS:16959.
(iv) Rambabu Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr., SLP
(Crl.) No. 5648 of 2025.
(v) Sk. Selim @ Sk. Salim @ Sekh Salim Vs. The State
of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No. 8133 of 2022.
7. Learned Special PP for DRI opposed the said
contentions by pointing out that prima facie there is enough
material on record in order to hold that rigors of Section 37 of
the Act would apply to the instant case. It is argued that on the
8/26
::: Uploaded on – 26/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 26/03/2026 21:20:43 :::
ba5216-24.doc
face of it, there is compliance of Sections 42 as well as 50 of the
Act and in this regard, attention of the Court is drawn to the
charge-sheet. It is argued that the panchnama reflects
communication of the right of the Applicant to being searched in
presence of another Gazetted Officer of a Magistrate. As far as
Gazetted Officer i.e. Deputy Director is concerned, at this stage it
cannot be said that there is non-compliance of Section 50 of the
Act. In this regard, reference is made to Section 50, which
according to her, permits the person to be taken to the nearest
Gazetted Officer of any of the Departments mentioned in Section
42. It is thus contended that at this stage, it cannot be said that
this search and seizure in presence of Deputy Director is in
contravention with the provisions of the Act. It is further pointed
out that there is no substance in the contention of Counsel for
the Applicant with regard to illegal detention of the Applicant.
By referring to notice under Section 67 of the Act, it is argued
that it cannot be said that the liberty of the Applicant was
curtailed, however, it was only intimated to him that till his
statement is recorded, he is expected not to leave without any
9/26
::: Uploaded on – 26/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 26/03/2026 21:20:43 :::
ba5216-24.doc
intimation to the Authorities, which according to her, does not
amount to arrest. In any case, it is argued that it is for the first
time such plea was raised by the Applicant, which was never
raised either before Magistrate or even in the application filed for
bail before the Special Court and hence not entertainable as
such plea has been raised at belated stage.
8. As far as objection with regard to mixing of two
different portions of seized contraband is concerned, it is pointed
out from the charge-sheet that before carrying out such mixing, a
test was conducted by Field Testing Kit and since it was found
that both portions were of the same contraband, they were
mixed. In this regard, reference is made to Rule 10 of Rules
2022, which permits such mixing and making bunches in lot of
not more than 10 packages. It is submitted that since the testing
was done and it is thereafter mixing was done in order to make
packages, there is no irregularity much less illegality done by the
Authority. With regard to the arguments in respect of change of
colour of the contraband, it is contended that once there is prima
facie material on record to show that the seized contraband was
10/26
::: Uploaded on – 26/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 26/03/2026 21:20:43 :::
ba5216-24.doc
sent to CA in sealed condition, there is no reason or justification
in order to create any doubt with regard to the same. With
regard to second test being carried out of the seized articles, it is
contended that the said act of carrying out second test was done
pursuant to the order passed by the Special Court and challenge
to the said order before this Court was unsuccessful. It is,
therefore, contended that having regard to the afore-stated facts
and considering the evidence on record indicating the
involvement of the Applicant in contraband articles, which is of
commercial quantity, this is not a fit case for grant of bail. To
support above submissions reliance is placed on following
judgements/ orders:
(i) Michael Onyeka Jude Vs. Directorate Of Rvenue
Intelligence and Anr., 2023: BHC- AS: 32973.
(ii) Bharat Aambale Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025
INSC 78.
(iii) Zaheer Gayasuddin Shaikh Vs State of
Maharashtra and Anr., 2024: BHC-AS: 12664.
(iv) Union Of India Vs. Namdeo Ashruba Nakade,
11/26
::: Uploaded on – 26/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 26/03/2026 21:20:43 :::
ba5216-24.docarising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9792/2025.
(v) Union of India Vs. Maheswaran Tondappa Rajgopal
and Anr., arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 11433/2025.
(vi) Anil Jaisinghani and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra
and Anr., 2023: BHC-AS: 10095-DB.
(vii) Maheswaran Tondappa Rajgopal and Anr. Vs.
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, NDPS B.A. No.
772/2023, NDPS Special Court at Greater Bombay.
(vii) Satly Thomas Vs. Union Of India, Criminal Writ
Petition No. 3337 of 2025, Bombay High Court.
(vii) Karan Ratan Rokde and Ors. vs. The State Of
Maharashtra and Anr., 2025:BHC-AS:17707-DB
(viii) Maheswaran Tondappa Rajgopal and Anr. Vs.
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, NDPS Special
Case No. 1471/2023, NDPS Special Court at Greater
Bombay.
(ix) Narcotics Control Bureau Vs. Kashif, 2024 INSC
1045: (2024) 11 SCC 372.
9. There is objection raised with regard to the mixing of
12/26
::: Uploaded on – 26/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 26/03/2026 21:20:43 :::
ba5216-24.doc
two different portions of contraband seized on the ground that it
is not so permissible under rules. This is opposed on the ground
that the same has been done only after testing the seized
contraband and ascertaining it to be homogeneous. In this regard
reference can be made to rule 10 of NDPS (Seizure, Storage,
Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022 (for short “Rules 2022”).
Rule 10 reads thus:
“10. Drawing the samples. –
(1) One sample, in duplicate, shall be drawn from
each package and container seized.
(2) When the packages and containers seized
together are of identical size and weight bearing
identical marking and the contents of each package
give identical results on colour test by the drugs
identification kit, conclusively indicating that the
packages are identical in all respects, the packages
and containers may carefully be bunched in lots of
not more than ten packages or containers, and for
each such lot of packages and containers, one
sample, in duplicate, shall be drawn:
Provided that in the case of ganja, poppy straw
and hashish (charas) it may be bunched in lots of not
more than fourty packages or containers.
(3) In case of drawing sample from a particular lot, it
shall be ensured that representative sample in equal
quantity is taken from each package or container of
that lot and mixed together to make a composite
whole from which the samples are drawn for that13/26
::: Uploaded on – 26/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 26/03/2026 21:20:43 :::
ba5216-24.doclot.”
This rule enables the authority/officer to mix the
different portions of contraband in the packets not more than
ten. Prima facie perusal of record indicated that on seizure of
two different portions of purported contraband, the same was
tested with Field Testing Kit, in presence of Panch Witness and
only after ascertaining the same to be homogeneous contraband,
mixing process is done. Thus, at this stage it cannot be said that
the act done by the authority contravenes rule 10 of Rules 2022.
10. As far as second testing is concerned, there was
challenge raised by Applicant before the Special Court while such
prayer was made by the prosecution. Since unsuccessful in said
opposition that order came to be challenged before this court. By
order dated 27/10/2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No.
142/2023, order of Special Court permitting testing of reserved
samples was affirmed. This order has not been taken exception
before Supreme Court. Thus, at this stage the issue/objection
raised by the Applicant to the double testing of samples cannot
be entertained. Similarly, with regards to two different reports in
14/26
::: Uploaded on – 26/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 26/03/2026 21:20:43 :::
ba5216-24.doc
respect same seized articles is concerned, in order dated
27/10/2023 passed by this court, following observations have
been made:
“18. In conclusion, therefore, it is quite clear that the
guidelines of Thana Singh‘s case (supra) were followed
by the investigating agency. The second test was
conducted during the course of investigation. As of
today, the report of CFSL, Pune, showing presence of
Heroin in the major contraband i.e. from the sample
A1-Duplicate’, is on record. The said report cannot be
ignored at this stage. The accused will have sufficient
opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses during trial
and to put forth his submissions in respect of both
these reports i.e. report of DYCC and the report of
CFSL, Pune. Therefore, I do not see any reason to
interfere with the impugned order.”
11. Since this court has already held that the same would
be left open for agitation in the trial and that accused has
sufficient opportunity to put forth his submissions with regard to
these reports, at this stage no benefit thereof could be given to
the Applicant/Accused.
12. Furthermore, the record indicated that there is
compliance of Section 42 and 50 of the Act, which is mandatory
in nature. As far as search in presence of Dy. Director of same
department is concerned, Section 50 requires the search in the
15/26
::: Uploaded on – 26/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 26/03/2026 21:20:43 :::
ba5216-24.doc
presence of Gazetted Officer and the Authority in whose
presence the search has been conducted is Appropriate
Authority/Gazetted Officer, in whose presence the search is
permissible. Thus, on the face of it the search conducted before
Dy. Director, DRS, MZV cannot be faulted with. The prejudice if
any caused to the Applicant by such search would be raised,
considered and determined before the Trial Court. Suffice it to
say that prima facie no illegality is shown to have been caused in
compliance of Section 50 of the Act, at this stage.
13. As far as non-appearance of signature of Panchas in
the said notice u/s 50 is concerned, there is reference in the
search and seizure panchanama about such intimation/notice of
right u/s 50 of the Act by communicating to the Applicant. Thus,
it is not the case wherein there is no reference in the record
about issuance of such notice/appraisal to the Applicant of his
rights u/s 50. It is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of
Ranjan Kumar Chadha vs. State of Himachal Pradesh,
2024 All SCR (Cri) 127, that such communication of right
could be orally or in writing. At this stage there is sufficient
16/26
::: Uploaded on – 26/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 26/03/2026 21:20:43 :::
ba5216-24.doc
material on record to accept compliance of Section 50 of the Act.
14. The statement of Appellant u/s 67 though may not
become substantive evidence, but has relevance during course of
investigation. From his statement the connection of Accused No.
2 is revealed and even recoveries were done of incriminating
articles from him. This court therefore finds substance in the
contention of prosecution about the activity of bringing narcotics
substance is concerted activity of Applicant and others.
15. In so far as claim of the Applicant about he being not
produced before the Magistrate within twenty-four hours of the
arrest is concerned, the prima facie perusal of first order of
remand indicates that no plea was raised before the court about
non-production of the Applicant within stipulated time after
arrest. Applicant came to be arrested on 20/03/2023. He
thereafter caused appearance on numerous occasions before the
Special Court but no grievance was made in this regard.
Similarly, even in bail application file before the Special Court,
the said court was not appraised of such defence. It is not his
claim that he was not represented by a lawyer of his choice at all
17/26
::: Uploaded on – 26/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 26/03/2026 21:20:43 :::
ba5216-24.doc
stages of proceeding since the time of his production for the first
time before the Magistrate.
16. It would not be out of context to make reference to the
order dated 09/12/2025 passed by Division Bench of this Court
in case of Satly Thomas (Supra). The said petition came to be
filed by the accused therein for declaration that the custody id
illegal for non-production within twenty-four hours of arrest. It
would be relevant to take note of observations made in para 7 of
order which reads thus:
“7) The present Writ Petition being filed in the
month of June, raising the very same ground which
was vented before the Special Judge and the same
ground is agitated before this Court in a Bail
Application, where the Applicant is securing bail. We
do not find merit in the Petition, as there is
unexplained delay in raising the ground alleging
violation of fundamental right, we are not inclined to
entertain the same. The Petitioner did not bother to
file the Petition till the month of June, 2025 and
despite his arrest being effected on 19/08/2023 as
then it was open for him to seek issuance of writ of
habeas corpus alleging his illegal detention at the
first opportunity, but not having availed so, we
refuse to entertain this ground in the Writ Petition.”
17. Similarly, in judgement dated 21/04/2025 passed in
Karan Ratan Rokde (supra) in para 25 to 28 following
18/26
::: Uploaded on – 26/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 26/03/2026 21:20:43 :::
ba5216-24.doc
observations were made:
“25. Having regard to the aforesaid observations of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various judgments
including the judgment delivered by a Five-Judge
Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we have to see
whether on the date of filing of this Petition or while
deciding this Petition whether the Petitioners were in
custody pursuant to the valid remand orders. answer
to this aspect will have to be in the affirmative. As
mentioned earlier, from 7.7.2023 onwards the
Petitioners were in custody pursuant to the valid
remand orders passed by the learned Special Judge
under the MCOC Act.
26. Another important aspect in this case is that the
Petitioners have not approached any Court
challenging the legality of their arrest and the
remand granted by the Magistrate on 2.7.2023
except in the present Petition. The remand order
from 2.7.2023 to 7.7.2023 was not challenged during
that period of detention.
27. Learned APP relied on the case of Mrinmoy
Maity’s case.
The relevant observations are made in paragraph-9
of the said judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
as follows:
“9. Having heard rival contentions raised and
on perusal of the facts obtained in the present
case, we are of the considered view that writ
Petitioner ought to have been non-suited or in
other words writ petition ought to have been
dismissed on the ground of delay and latches19/26
::: Uploaded on – 26/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 26/03/2026 21:20:43 :::
ba5216-24.docitself. An applicant who approaches the court
belatedly or in other words sleeps over his
rights for a considerable period of time, wakes
up from his deep slumber ought not to be
granted the extraordinary relief by the writ
courts. This Court time and again has held that
delay defeats equity. Delay or latches is one of
the factors which should be born in mind by
the High Court while exercising discretionary
powers Under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. In a given case, the High Court may
refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if
laxity on the part of the applicant to assert his
right has allowed the cause of action to drift
away and attempts are made subsequently to
rekindle the lapsed cause of action.”
28. In the present case, as mentioned earlier, there is
no justification as to why this issue was never raised
for considerable period between 2.7.2023 upto
26.11.2024 when this Petition was filed. The
Petitioners were represented by an Advocate right
from 2.7.2023. On this ground also we are not
inclined to set aside the remand granted on the first
occasion by the learned Magistrate on 2.7.2023 and
set the Petitioners at liberty.”
18. In the above backdrop, in the instant case record
indicates that only for first time such plea is raised before this
court in present application. It was neither raised before the
Magistrate or even before the Ld. Special Court in an application
for bail.
20/26
::: Uploaded on – 26/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 26/03/2026 21:20:43 :::
ba5216-24.doc
19. It is argued on behalf of the applicant that by notice
u/s 67 of the Act, he was not allowed to leave office of DRI and
hence it amounts arrest being a restrain on personal liberty.
Though it is so claimed, there is nothing on record to indicate
that he wished to leave office but was prevented from doing so.
Needless to say, the disputed facts involved in the instant case
cannot be decided at this stage. In this backdrop memo of arrest
clearly records satisfaction of the Intelligence Officer DRI, an
authority u/s 42 of the Act that Applicant has committed offence
and involved himself in conspiracy for procuring, possession, etc.
of contraband. This becomes relevant in view of the fact that on
statement/information of the Applicant led to seizure of
incriminating articles including contraband from co-accused.
Considering the peculiarity of facts involved in this case this
court finds no substance in the contention of applicant of illegal
detention.
20. With regard to the contention of counsel for Applicant
about statement of Applicant u/s 67 being ex-culpatory, it is
pertinent to note that pursuant to disclosure made by him, there
21/26
::: Uploaded on – 26/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 26/03/2026 21:20:43 :::
ba5216-24.doc
is recovery of incriminating materials from co-accused.
21. As far as appearance of Crime Number on notice u/s
50 and statement u/s 67 of the Act is concerned, the same is
explained in view of the procedure adopted for registration of
crime. In considered view of this court, having regard to prima
facie material on record and compliance of mandatory nature as
provided by the Act being done in this case, the same which
would be explainable during trial cannot become sole ground for
enlargement of Applicant on bail.
22. Since it is claimed that Applicant is in jail for period of
three years it would be relevant to refer to the judgement of
Hon’ble supreme Court in case of State Madhya Pradesh Vs.
Kajad, 2001 (7) SCC 673. wherein it is held thus:
“5. ………..A perusal of Section 37 of the Act leaves
no doubt in the mind of the court that a person
accused of an offence, punishable for a term of
imprisonment of five years or more, shall generally be
not released on bail. Negation of bail is the rule and its
grant an exception under sub-clause (ii) of clause (b)
of Section 37(1). For granting the bail the court must,
on the basis of the record produced before it, be
satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for
believing that the accused is not guilty of the offences
with which he is charged and further that he is not22/26
::: Uploaded on – 26/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 26/03/2026 21:20:43 :::
ba5216-24.doclikely to commit any offence while on bail. It has
further to be noticed that the conditions for granting
the bail, specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of
Section 37 are in addition to the limitations provided
under the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other
law for the time being in force regulating the grant of
bail. Liberal approach in the matter of bail under the
Act is uncalled for.”
23. Similarly, in case of NCB vs. Mohit Aggrawal, (2022) 8 SCC
374, it is held that the length of the period of his custody or the
fact that the charge-sheet has been filed and trial has
commenced are, by themselves, not considerations that can be
treated as persuasive ground for grant of relief to the
Respondent under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
23. In so far as non-compliance of Section 52A of the Act
is concerned, a fruitful reference can be made to judgement of
Supreme Court in case of NCB Vs. Kashif, (2024) 11 SCC 372,
wherein discussion on this point is summarized by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court as under:
“50. The upshot of the above discussion may be
summarized as under: –
50.1 The provisions of NDPS Act are required to be
interpreted keeping in mind the scheme, object, and
purpose of the Act; as also the impact on the society as23/26
::: Uploaded on – 26/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 26/03/2026 21:20:43 :::
ba5216-24.doca whole. It has to be interpreted literally and not
liberally, which may ultimately frustrate the object,
purpose, and Preamble of the Act.
50.2 While considering the application for bail, the
Court must bear in mind the provisions of Section 37
of the NDPS Act which are mandatory in nature.
Recording of findings as mandated in Section 37 is
sine qua non is known for granting bail to the accused
involved in the offences under the NDPS Act.
50.3 The purpose of insertion of Section 52A, laying
down the procedure for disposal of seized Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, was to ensure the
early disposal of the seized contraband drugs and
substances. It was inserted in 1989 as one of the
measures to implement and to give effect to the
International Conventions on the Narcotic drugs and
psychotropic substances.
50.4 Sub-section (2) of Section 52A lays down the
procedure as contemplated in sub-section (1) thereof,
and any lapse or delayed compliance thereof would be
merely a procedural irregularity, which would neither
entitle the accused to be released on bail nor would
vitiate the trial on that ground alone.
50.5 Any procedural irregularity or illegality found to
have been committed in conducting the search and
seizure during the course of investigation or thereafter,
would by itself not make the entire evidence collected
during the course of investigation, inadmissible. The
Court would have to consider all the circumstances
and find out whether any serious prejudice has been
caused to the accused.
50.6 Any lapse or delay in compliance of Section 52A
by itself would neither vitiate the trial nor would
24/26
::: Uploaded on – 26/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 26/03/2026 21:20:43 :::
ba5216-24.doc
entitle the accused to be released on bail. The Court
will have to consider other circumstances and the
other primary evidence collected during the course of
investigation, as also the statutory presumption
permissible under Section 54 of the NDPS Act.”
24. Finally, with regard to bail sought on medical ground,
it is necessary to take note of the order dated 17/02/2026
passed by this court in present Application. The relevant portion
of the said Application reads thus:
“3. By the order dated 9 February 2026, Ms. Gotad
was requested to call for a report from the
Superintendent, Taloja Central Prison regarding the
health status of the Applicant. Today, Ms. Gotad has
placed on record the said report concerning the
health status of the Applicant. The same is taken on
record and marked as “X” for identification.
4. The report is dated 16th February 2026, the
present health status according to report is as under:
“Present Health Status: The said prisoner was
examined by prison medical officer on dated
10/02/2026. He has no active complaints.
However, he is known case of Left sided
hemiparesis with cerebrovascular accident
(stroke) and hypertension for which he takes
regular medicines. At present his general
condition is moderate and vital parameters are
within normal limits. He has decreased power
in left upper and lower limb. He will refer to
higher center as and when needed as per the
availability of police escorts.”
25/26
::: Uploaded on – 26/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 26/03/2026 21:20:43 :::
ba5216-24.doc
5. Considering that the Applicant is stable and does
not have any active complaints presently, I am not
inclined to grant Interim Bail to the Applicant.
However, it is made clear that in case of any medical
emergency or any deterioration in the medical
condition of the Applicant, the prison authorities
shall take the Applicant for treatment to the J.J.
Hospital as and when needed, irrespective of the
availability of adequate police escort.”
25. There is specific direction to Jail Authorities to take
Applicant to J. J. Hospital irrespective of availability of police
escort which takes care of apprehension of the counsel for
Applicant. No further order therefore is needed for want of
change in circumstances.
26. Upshot of above discussion is that this court has no
reason to believe that Applicant has neither committed offence
nor that he would not commit an offence if he is released on bail.
Hence Application stands dismissed.
(R.M. JOSHI, J.)
26/26
::: Uploaded on – 26/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 26/03/2026 21:20:43 :::
