IN THE COURT OF THE LD SPL JUDGE APPOINTED

UNDER THE N.D.P.S ACT.MUMBAI;

NDPS BAIL APPLICATION EXHIBIT NO.

IN

NDPS SPL. CASE NO.538 OF 2025

Mohammed Shadab Saeed Khan

(An adult, Indian Inhabitant

) Aged about 31 years, Occ: Business
) R/o: B/719, 7th Floor Prince Park SRA
) Society PMGP Colony Dharavi mumbai,
) Mumbai - 400017

(Accused is in Judicial Custody)

…APPLICANT/ACCUSED No. 2

VERSUS

ANC, Bandra UNIT …RESPONDENT

HUMBLE APPLICATION FOR BAIL

U/s 483 OF Bhartiya

Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS),

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR;

1. The Applicant/accused abovenamed is an Indian national

and residing at the address hereinabove mentioned alongwith his

family members.
2. The Applicant/accused was arrested by the officers of the

respondents for alleged offences u/s 8(c) r/w 22(c) and 29 of

NDPS Act on 09.09.2024. The Applicant/accused was produced

before the Ld. M.M, and was remanded to police custody and

thereafter was remanded to Judicial Custody.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 09.09.2024 as per

direction of Superior officer the team of ANC, Bandra Unit went on

patrolling duty for tracing peddlers dealing in sale and purchase

of narcotics drugs. It is the case of prosecution that the team going

on patrolling duty were carrying with them the raiding material and

also the brass seal. It is alleged that at about 18.45 hours

when the team of officers came nearNaik Nagar L.B.S road

Sion Mumbai -10 they noticed two persons in a suspicious

manner and they were seen to be waiting for somebody. It is

further the case of prosecution that they apprehended the said

persons and asked them about their details.

It is alleged that on personal search of the co-

accused no.1Applicant/Accused No. 1 led to the recovery of 27

grams of Mephedrone.
 It is alleged that on personal search of the Applicant No. 2 led

to the recovery of 39 grams white powder purported to

contain Mephedrone.

The same was seized under a panchnama. The

Applicant/Accused alongwith Accused No. 1 were placed

under arrest in respect of the said seizure and are at present in

Judicial Custody.

4. That the applicant/accused now prays for his liberty before

this Hon’ble Court on the following amongst other grounds which

are stated without prejudice to each other.

GROUNDS

a) It is pertinent to note that it is the case of prosecution that while

on patrolling duty they found two persons to be suspicious

and accordingly tried to apprehend him.

b) It is further pertinent to note that quantity allegedly recovered

from the possession of the applicant is 39 grm of MD alleged

qty is a Non-commerical qty So therefore Rigor of 37 is not

attracted.

c) Further the prosecution seeks to charge the applicant for dealing

in commercial quantity contraband along with co-accused person

as and by way of conspiracy under section 21 and 22 NDPS act,

1985. It is However submitted that the quantity alleged recovered

from the
 individual accused person amount to Non-commerical and that it

is submitted that no case for conspiracy is made out.

d) It is pertinent to note that Superior officer had suspicion that

the applicant/accused had presence of Psychotropic drugs. This in

turn clearly shows that Superior officer had personal reasonable

belief that Applicant/accused having Psychotropic drugs with

him and accordingly Superior officer had intentions to

search the Applicant/Accused.

e) It is pertinent to note that when Superior officer had

reasonable belief that there was presence of Psychotropic drugs

with them, he ought to have followed the procedure of search and

seizure as per the guidelines laid down under the NDPS Act.

f) It is pertinent to note that even after knowing that the contents

were Psychotropic drugs upon enquiring about the contents of the

same; and despite coming to know that it was a contraband

covered under NDPS Act; further raid was not conducted in

consonance with the provisions of NDPS Act.

g) It is pertinent to note that in the case at hand Superior officer

while interrogating the Applicant/Accused received the

information that the seized powder were Psychotropic

substances covered under NDPS Act. It is pertinent to note that

Superior officer ought to have conducted the further raid as per the

guidelines of NDPS Act.

h) It is pertinent to note that no officer empowered under section 50

of NDPS Act i.e. No independent Gazetted Officer was present at

the time of search of the Applicant/accused; and the entire search

was conducted in absence of any empowered officer. Thus,

violating the provision of Sec 50 of NDPS Act.

i) It is pertinent to note that the officers of respondent have

not complied with the provisions of search as laid down in Sec

50 of NDPS Act despite having knowledge that contraband drug is

being recovered and even after going on patrolling duty

with all preparations for conducting raid, they choose not to

take any Gazetted Officer or even intimate any Gazetted Officer

or call any Gazetted Officer on the spot after having reasonable

belief that the applicant/accused was carrying Psychotropic drugs.

j) That the said aspect is non-compliance of Sec 50 of NDPS Act.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Courts have in a

catena of judgments held that non-compliance of Sec 50 vitiates the

trial.
k) It is pertinent to note that the contraband was weighed along

with zip lock plastic bag in which the said drug was found; the

weight of the plastic bag ought to have been excluded.

l) It is pertinent to note that the Chargesheet is filed in the said case

before this Hon’ble Court and investigation is completed.

m) That the Applicant/Accused is falsely implicated in this case

and denies committing any offence as alleged.

n) That the allegations made against the Applicant/Accused are totally

false and baseless.

o) That the applicant/accused is the only earning member in his family

and has a family to support.

p) That the Applicant/Accused is a permanent resident of Mumbai

and living with his family members and there is no apprehension

that he would abscond from justice or temper with witnesses.

q) That the Applicant/Accused undertakes to abide by any terms

and conditions as this Hon’ble court may deem fit to impose

in the circumstances of this case.

r) That the Applicant/Accused states that he has not filed any

other application for similar reliefs before this Hon’ble court or the

Hon’ble High court.

Under the circumstances it is prayed that

1. Pending the hearing and final disposal of NDPS Spl. Case

No. 538 of 2025 before this Hon’ble court, this Hon’ble court

may be pleased to order the release of the Applicant/Accused

on bail on such terms and conditions as this Hon’ble court

deems fit and proper.

2. Any other reliefs.

Mumbai

17th February, 2024 Adv for Applicant/Accus

IN THE COURT OF THE LD SPL
JUDGE APPOINTED UNDER
THE
N.D.P.S ACT.
MUMBAI
NDPS BAIL APPL. EXH. NO.
IN
NDPS SPL CASE NO. OF 2025

Mohd. Shadab Saeed Khan

...Applicant/Accused No. 2
VS

ANC, Bandra UNIT

…Respondent

HUMBLE APPLICATION FOR BAIL

U/s 483 OF BNSS, 2023
Filed on 5th Day of MARCH 2025

KAMLESH SATRE
Advocates High Court
Nr. Sai Baba Mandir, Taxi
Stand, Road No. 1, Park Site,