Juned Ashrafali Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra

¶1

904-BA-1072-2025.DOC

¶2

Ajit Pathrikar

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1072 of 2025

¶6

Juned Ashrafali Shaikh ...Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶7

Ms. Lochan P. Chandka a/w Raunak Naik , for the Applicant. Mr. Yogesh Y. Dabke , APP for the State-Respondent. ASI – Baban Bande , Thane Crime Branch Unit – 4, Ulhasnagar, is present.

¶8

CORAM Dr. Neela Gokhale, J. DATED: 4^th NOVEMBER 2025

¶9

PC:-

¶10

1. By way of the present Bail Application, the Applicant

¶11

seeks his release on bail in connection with CR No. 598 of 2023 dated 29^th July 2023 registered with Narpoli Police Station, Mumbai for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) and 20(2)(g) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, “NDPS Act”).

¶12

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 28^th July 2023,

¶13

an information was received by the police that one person was

¶14

Page 1 of 7 4^th November 2025

¶15

904-BA-1072-2025.DOC

¶16

in possession and was selling contraband near Bhandari Compound, Bhiwandi. Upon receiving the information, the police raided the spot of offence along with panchas. They noticed one person on the spot lurking in suspicious manner. The raiding party introduced themselves to the said person and after complying with the necessary provisions of the NDPS Act, arrested him. The said person was the Applicant herein. There were two bags with the Applicant. One bag contained 8 packets and other bag contained 5 packets. It was found that these packets contained Ganja. Accordingly, the present FIR came to be registered and the Applicant was arrested.

¶17

3. The Applicant made an application seeking bail before the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwandi. However, by order dated 1^st January 2025, the said application was rejected. Hence, the Applicant is before this Court for the relief as prayed.

¶18

Page 2 of 7

¶19

4^th November 2025

¶20

904-BA-1072-2025.DOC

¶21

4. Ms. Lochan Chandka, learned Counsel for the Applicant, submits that while the Applicant is arraigned as an accused having recovered 26.190 Kg. of Ganja from him, there is a non compliance of Section 41 of the NDPS Act as there is no information note and the alleged information has not been forwarded to the superior immediately as required under the Act. She also submits that there was mixing of contraband which was found in the 8 and 5 packets in the bags when the seizure took place. Hence, it is not established that the entire contraband weighing 26.190 kg. was altogether Ganja. She also submits that the Applicant was arrested on 29^th July 2023 and has suffered incarceration of 2 years and 4 months without framing of charges. She then submits that till date, the CA report also has not been received from the FSL. In these circumstances, she submits that the Applicant be released on bail.

¶22

5. Per contra, Mr. Yogesh Dabke, learned APP, relying upon

¶23

the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat

¶24

Page 3 of 7 4^th November 2025

¶25

904-BA-1072-2025.DOC

¶26

Aambale Vs. The State of Chattisgarh¹ . Where the Supreme Court has clearly opined that a mere assertion by the accused of non compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act may not be sufficient and the initial burden is always on the accused to lay down the foundational facts for establishing that there is a non compliance of the said Section, either by leading evidence on their own or by relying upon the evidence of the prosecution itself. He submits that, at best, this Court can direct the CA report to be expedited. Thus, he resists the Bail Application.

¶27

6. I have heard learned Counsel for the respective parties and perused the record with their assistance.

¶28

7. It appears that the Applicant is behind bars since 29^th July 2023 in connection with the said FIR. Although chargesheet has been filed on 19^th January 2024, till date the charges are not framed and even the CA report has not been procured from the FSL concerned. At this point, Mr. Dabke

¶29

1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 110

¶30

Page 4 of 7 4^th November 2025

¶31

904-BA-1072-2025.DOC

¶32

states that a reminder letter has been issued by the police station concerned to the FSL. However, the CA report is still awaited. The FSL concerned is directed to expedite the submission of CA report and preferably within a period of 15 days from the date this order is uploaded.

¶33

8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of long incarceration of the Applicant without there being any real possibility of early completion of the trial, I am inclined to enlarge the Applicant on bail and it is ordered as under:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

i) The Applicant be enlarged on bail, on executing PR

¶36

Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount;

¶37

ii) The Applicant shall attend the Narpoli Police Station, on first Monday of every month between 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 noon, till the charges are framed by the Trial Court. He shall also attend the Trial Court concerned on each and every date

¶38

Page 5 of 7 4^th November 2025

¶39

904-BA-1072-2025.DOC

¶40

as directed, till the conclusion of the trial, save and except if the Applicant is exempted from appearance by orders of the Trial Court;

¶41

iii) If the Applicant has not deposited his passport, the Applicant shall deposit the same with the concerned Police Station, if any;

¶42

iv) The Applicant shall not tamper or attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case;

¶43

v) The Applicant shall inform his latest place of residence and mobile contact number immediately after being released and / or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from time to time to the Court seized of the matter and to the Investigating Officer of the concerned Police Station;

¶44

vi) The Applicant to co-operate with the conduct of the trial;

¶45

Page 6 of 7 4^th November 2025

¶46

904-BA-1072-2025.DOC

¶47

vii) Any infraction of the aforesaid conditions shall entail cancellation of bail;

¶48

9. Application is allowed in the above terms and is accordingly disposed of.

¶49

10. It is made clear that the observations made herein are prima facie and are confined to this Application and the Trial Judge to decide the case on its own merits, uninfluenced by the observations made herein.

¶50

(Dr. Neela Gokhale, J)

¶51

Page 7 of 7

¶52

4^th November 2025

Juned Ashrafali Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Juned Ashrafali Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohd. Danish S/O Hanif @ Danish Malik Hanif Malik vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Narendra Tirthraj Dubey vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Nasir Mohammed Yusuf Shaikh vs the State of Maharashtra

Aqeel Aziz Khan vs State of Maharashtra

Stephen Onubi Moses vs Union of India and Anr.

Samar Sonkar vs Union of India and Anr.