Disposed¶20

Maria Remmy Mushi v. Union of India and Anr.

NDPS Act – Bail

Bombay HC8 Aug 2025BA/1626/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court, Criminal Bail Application No. 1626 of 2025, Maria Remmy Mushi v. Union of India and Anr., Coram Milind N. Jadhav, J., decided April 24, 2025. NDPS Act bail application by foreign national arrested with 210 grams of cocaine; prima facie finding that appraisal notice transgresses NDPS Act and lacks pancha witness signatures per guidelines in Ranjan Kumar Chadha Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1262; prosecution to file affidavit-in-reply within two weeks; adjourned to 8th May, 2025.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief granted at this stage. Affidavit-in-Reply directed to be filed positively within two weeks with no extension of time; matter to be heard on the next date and stands over to 8th May, 2025. ¶20

Maria Remmy Mushi vs Union of India and Anr. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Bombay HC (2025)

¶1

8_BA_1626_2025.docx

¶2

Prasad Rajput

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1626 OF 2025

¶6

Maria Remmy Mushi .. Applicant Versus Union of India and Anr. .. Respondents

¶7

Mr. Khushal Parmar a/w Ms. Anjali More, Advocates for Applicant.

¶8

Mr. Rushikesh Munde (SPP), a/w Shatabdi Netke and Mr. Tejas Bhattacharya, for Respondent – UOI.

¶9

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : APRIL 24, 2025

¶10

P. C.:

¶11

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

¶12

Munde, learned Special PP for Respondent UOI.

¶13

2. Applicant in the present case is a foreign national. She is apprehended with the alleged contraband namely 210 grams of cocaine and is in incarceration since 9^th October, 2023.

¶14

3. Principal submission advanced by Mr. Parmar is with respect to appraisal notice appended at page No.39 of the Application. Prima facie the prosecution has transgressed the provisions of NDPS Act when said appraisal notice is seen. The appraisal notice is not in conformity with the provisions of said act as contemplated and envisaged by the Supreme Court in the case of Ranjan Kumar Chadha

1 of 2

8_BA_1626_2025.docx

P.R. Rajput

Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh¹ . Guidelines which have been stated therein are required to be scrupulously followed by the prosecution officers and any delineation therefrom is impermissible in law even at the threshold stage. When the said appraisal notice is prima facie seen it lacks rather it does not reflect signatures of pancha witnesses which is the sine qua non of the prosecution procedure for apprehending and arresting accused person.

¶19

4. Though Mr. Munde learned Prosecutor on behalf of UOI

¶20

would submit that Supreme Court has also stated that if the right of accused is conveyed orally that would suffice, he will have to make good his submission. Be that as it may, he would persuade the Court to give time to file Affidavit-in-Reply to place the legal position on record and also to contest the submissions made by Mr. Parmar. In that case Affidavit-in-Reply is directed to be filed positively within a period of two weeks from today. It is clarified that no extension of time to file the Affidavit-in-Reply will be given to prosecution and the matter will be heard on the next date.

¶21

Stand over to 8^th May, 2025 .

¶22

1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1262.

¶23

2 of 2

Maria Remmy Mushi v. Union of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maria Remmy Mushi v. Union of India and Anr.

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

Narendra Tirthraj Dubey vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mohammed Yusuf Iqbal Dhuru vs State of Maharashtra

Shakir Shakil Ahmed vs State of Maharashtra

Frank Kenneth Ezi vs State of Maharashtra

Saud Shafiq Sayyed vs State of Maharashtra

Wenceslaus Subash Iyer vs the Union of India and Anr.