Disposed¶23

Mohd Iqbal Nabi Shaikh v. the Union of India and Anr.

Bombay HC9 Apr 2025BA/1274/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court, Bail Application No.1274 of 2025, Mohd Iqbal Nabi Shaikh v. The Union Of India and Anr., coram Milind N. Jadhav, J., decided 01.04.2025. NDPS Act bail; 38 grams Mephedrone; Accused No.1; seizure at Shil Phata near Mumbra per panchnama versus IIT Powai location per CDR Analysis Report (charge-sheet, transcript p.335); discrepancy on date of arrest/detention; prosecution to take instructions on precise role of Applicant; hearing adjourned to 29.04.2025. Interim order only — no precedent value on bail merits.

What did the court decide?

Prosecution directed to take instructions and apprise the Court about the precise role of the Applicant in the crime. ¶22

Mohd Iqbal Nabi Shaikh vs the Union of India and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

13.BA.1274.2025.doc

¶2

HARSHADA H. SAWANT (P.A.)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

BAIL APPLICATION NO.1274 OF 2025

¶6

Mohd Iqbal Nabi Shaikh .. Applicant

¶7

Versus The Union Of India and Anr. .. Respondents

¶8

Mr. Bipul Maity, Advocate for Applicant.

¶9

None for Respondent No.1.

¶10

Mr. Hitendra J. Dedhia, APP for Respondent No.2.

¶11

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : APRIL 01, 2025

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

1. Heard Mr. Maity, learned Advocate for Applicant and Mr.

¶14

Dedhia, learned APP for Respondent No.2.

¶15

2. Applicant is indicted under provisions of Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘ NDPS Act ’) for having been apprehended with 38 grams of alleged contraband namely ‘Mephedrone’. He is incarcerated for past more than two years and 5 months.

¶16

3. Mr. Maity would submit that Applicant is arraigned as Accused No.1 in the present crime and seizure panchnama shows that he has been searched and alleged contraband has been seized at location in Shil Phata near Mumbra.

¶17

4. Mr. Maity would submit that CDR Analysis Reports referred

¶18

1 of 2

¶19

13.BA.1274.2025.doc

¶20

and relied upon by prosecution in the same crime and appended to the charge-sheet shows that the location of Applicant at the time of search and seizure of alleged contraband was at IIT Powai. It is reflected according to transcript on page No.335.

¶21

5. That apart, Mr. Maity would submit that there is discrepancy on the date of arrest as the Applicant was placed under detention for quite some time which he would require to argue.

¶22

6. Considering the aforesaid submissions, prosecution shall take instructions and apprise the Court accordingly about the precise role of Applicant. Considering the long incarceration of Applicant, the present Application shall be heard and decided on the next adjourned date.

¶23

7. Stand over to 29^th April, 2025 .

¶24

H. H. SAWANT

¶25

[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

¶26

Digitally signed HARSHADAHANUMANT by HARSHADAHANUMANTSAWANT SAWANT Date: 2025.04.01 14:55:40 +0530

¶27

2 of 2

Mohd Iqbal Nabi Shaikh v. the Union of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Iqbal Nabi Shaikh v. the Union of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Yatish Sharma vs the Union of India and Anr.

Sandhya Rani Kadiyala vs the Union of India

Akhileshkumar Ramlakhan Shukla vs State of Maharashtra

Mahesh Thanvi vs Union of India Through Office Public Prosecutor Special Government Consel Goi

Bhairav Premises Co-Operative Society Ltd. and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra through the Office of the Government Pleader and Ors.

Arjun Amar Singh vs the State of Maharashtra