Dismissed¶23

Heron Ashok Ray v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC6 Apr 2026BA/1468/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NDPS Act 1985 Section 50 compliance; pre-search notice of right to be searched before Magistrate or Gazetted Officer; Sections 8(c) and 22(c) NDPS; bail denied for non-compliance claim rejected; ANC Bandra C.R. No 18 of 2020; State of Rajasthan v. Premanand (2014) 5 SC 345 referred by counsel; trial near conclusion with one witness remaining; Bombay High Court Criminal Bail Application No. 1468 of 2026; Heron Ashok Ray v. State of Maharashtra; observations prima facie, not binding during trial.

What did the court decide?

A prima facie perusal of the record indicates that a written notice was given to the Applicant indicating his right to be searched before the nearest Magistrate or Gazetted Officer. ¶18

Heron Ashok Ray vs the State of Maharashtra — Narcotics (NDPS) | Bombay HC (2026)

¶1

58-BA-1468-2026.ODT

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1468 OF 2026

¶4

Heron Ashok Ray …Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra …Respondent

¶5

Mr. Somnath Iyer, for the Applicant.

¶6

Mrs. Sangeeta Shinde, APP, for the Respondent – State.

¶7

API - Khandagale, ANC Bandra Unit, is present.

¶8

CORAM: R. M. JOSHI, J. DATED: 5^th May, 2026

¶9

PC:-

¶10

Applicant seeks bail in connection with C.R. No 18 of 2020 registered with ANC, Bandra Unit, Mumbai for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c) read with Section 22(c) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, “NDPS Act”).

¶11

This bail is sought solely on the ground that there is noncompliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. Learned Counsel for

¶12

the Applicant submits that no separate notices are given to the

¶13

Page 1 of 3 5^th May 2026

¶14

58-BA-1468-2026.ODT

¶15

Applicant indicating his right to be searched before the Magistrate or before the Gazetted Officer. To support his submission he placed reliance on judgment in a case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Premanand And Another (2014) 5 Supreme Court 345.

¶16

Learned APP opposed the application by pointing out notice given to the Applicant in this regard. She also makes statement that there only remains one witness to be examined before the Trial Court. And that the trial is on the verge of conclusion.

¶17

This Court was not inclined to pass any order or to make any observations even prima facie in view of the fact that only one witness is to be examined and trial would get over in short of time. However, learned counsel for the Applicant has invited an order. Hence, this order.

¶18

Prima facie perusal of the record indicates that there is a written notice given to the Applicant indicating his right to be searched before the nearest Magistrate or Gazetted Officer.

¶19

Page 2 of 3 5^th May 2026

¶20

58-BA-1468-2026.ODT

¶21

There is complete compliance of Section 50 of the Act. As such this not the case for grant of bail. Hence, following order.

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

Application stands dismissed.

¶24

The observations made are prima facie in nature and won’t bind parties/Court during trial.