The Bombay High Court has granted bail to a woman accused in an NDPS case, holding that Section 50(4) requires a female accused to be searched in seclusion and in the absence of male persons. Justice Shyam C. Chandak held that conducting the search in the presence of a male police inspector and a male panch witness prima facie violated Section 50(4) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
According to the prosecution, a police team was patrolling the Bail Bazar area of Kalyan on the evening of September 25, 2025, when it noticed the woman and a male co-accused. Police said the two looked suspicious and tried to run away on seeing them. The officers stopped them and called two panch witnesses, known as panchas. They also served both accused with notices under Section 50 of the NDPS Act.
Police allegedly found 111 grams of heroin in the man’s pant pocket during the search. They claimed that a similar plastic bag in the woman’s purse contained 57 grams of MD. A case was registered at Bazarpeth Police Station, Thane, under Sections 8(c), 21(b), 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act, and the woman was arrested. Police later filed a charge-sheet, and the trial court refused to release her on bail.
Her lawyer argued that Section 50(4) of the NDPS Act had been violated because male personnel were present during the search of the woman and her purse. The State opposed the bail application, arguing that the presence of male personnel during the search did not, by itself, establish a violation of Section 50(4) of the NDPS Act.
Justice Shyam C. Chandak examined the spot panchanama, or record of the search and seizure. He observed:
“I have considered these submission. A bare perusal of the spot panchanama evinces that the personal search of the applicant and her purse was conducted by a female police head constable namely R.J. Ghuge in the presence and gaze of the male panch and male police officer Mr. Dukale, Police Inspector. It is not the case that the said search and seizure was conducted in seclusion. Therefore, it was in violation of Section 50(4) of NDPS Act.”
After considering earlier judicial decisions on Section 50(4) of the NDPS Act, Justice Chandak observed:
“In the wake of above, there is no escape from a prima facie conclusion that the search and seizure of the contraband from the applicant is vitiated on the count that it was conducted in the presence and gaze of a male police officer Mr. Dukale as well as a male panch. This situation permits an inference by the Court that the applicant may not be guilty of the aforesaid offences alleged against her. It is stated that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. As a result, the rigours of Section 37 of NDPS Act are not attracted.”
The Bombay High Court granted bail to the woman on a personal recognisance bond of ₹50,000 with one or two sureties of the same amount. The Court directed her to attend the police station once every two months and comply with the other bail conditions. It clarified that its observations would not affect the outcome of the trial.
Case Title: Jaibun Mohammed Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra
Case Number: Bail Application No. 3695 of 2026
-300x169.webp&w=2048&q=75)