The Bombay High Court has granted bail to Jaibun Mohammed Shaikh in a narcotics case, holding that the search of the woman and her purse was conducted in the presence of male police personnel and a male witness, contrary to the safeguards under Section 50(4) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.
Justice Shyam C. Chandak observing that the presence of a female police officer alone did not satisfy the statutory requirement that a woman be searched in seclusion and without male persons present.
Background
The case arose from an incident on September 25, 2025, when police personnel on patrol in the Bail Bazar area of Kalyan, Thane, allegedly found Shaikh and another accused behaving suspiciously. According to the prosecution, a search resulted in the recovery of 111 grams of heroin from the other accused and 57 grams of mephedrone (MD) from a purse carried by Shaikh.
A case was registered under Sections 8(c), 21(b), 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act. After the investigation was completed and the charge sheet filed, the trial court rejected Shaikh's bail application, prompting her to approach the High Court.
Her counsel argued that the search violated Section 50(4) because, although a female police head constable conducted it, a male police inspector and a male panch witness were present. The defence also questioned the quantity recorded, arguing that the weight included the plastic packaging.
The State opposed bail, maintaining that the search and seizure were valid and that the question of the actual quantity recovered could be examined during trial.
Justice Chandak examined the spot panchnama, which recorded that the personal search and the search of Shaikh's purse were conducted by a female police head constable in the presence and view of male personnel.
The Court held that the search had not taken place in seclusion, as required by law. Referring to earlier decisions, including Heena Bharat Shah v. State of Maharashtra, it reiterated that the statutory safeguard protects a woman's privacy and dignity during a personal search.
The Court relied on the following observation from the earlier judgment:
"The provision envisages regard for the person and privacy of a female and the same is not honoured by the mere fact of the search being carried out by a female constable. Section 50(4) of NDPS Act additionally requires that the female accused be searched in seclusion and to the exclusion of males."
The Court also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in State of Punjab v. Surinder Rani alias Chhindi, which recognised that the requirement under Section 50(4) is mandatory and cannot be diluted merely because a female officer is unavailable.
Justice Chandak observed that the search and seizure were prima facie vitiated because the search took place in the presence of a male police inspector and a male panch witness. The Court also noted that Shaikh had no criminal antecedents.
Finding grounds to grant bail, the High Court directed Shaikh's release on a personal recognisance bond of ₹50,000, with one or two sureties for the same amount. She must report to Bazarpeth Police Station once every two months between 11 am and 2 pm until the trial concludes.
The Court further directed her to attend trial proceedings regularly, refrain from similar activities, avoid tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and keep the investigating officer informed of her contact details.
It clarified that its observations were limited to deciding bail and would not affect the merits of the trial.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Jaibun Mohammed Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra
- Case Number: Bail Application No. 3695 of 2026
- Judge: Justice Shyam C. Chandak
- Decision Date: September 28, 2026
