Allowed

Sabera B Rahim Khan v. State of Maharashtra

Bail allowed – NDPS Act, 1985

Bombay HC17 Feb 2026BA/643/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court (Dr. Neela Gokhale, J.), order dated 17 February 2026 in Bail Application No. 643 of 2026, Sabera B Rahim Khan v. State of Maharashtra. NDPS bail: 17.329 kg Ganja seized from two bags in the Applicant's possession during patrolling of reserved coaches of Train No. 18030 at Thane Railway Station; co-accused Amina Khan allegedly carried 15.594 kg; charges under Ss. 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(

What did the court decide?

The Applicant enlarged on bail on executing a PR Bond of Rs.50,000/- with one or two local sureties in the like amount, subject to conditions: (ii) attendance at the Trial Court on each and every date

Sabera B Rahim Khan Vs State of Maharashtra — Narcotics (NDPS) | Bombay HC (2026)

¶1

Shivgan 8-BA-643-2026.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 643 OF 2026

¶4

Sabera B Rahim Khan …Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra …Respondent

¶5

Ms. Zehra Charania , with Ayaz Khan, Dilip Mishra and Mallika Sharma, for the Applicant.

¶6

Ms. Anuja Sunil Gotad , APP for the Respondent-State. Mr. Ashok Holkar , PSI attached to Crime Branch, present.

¶7

CORAM DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J. DATED: 17^th FEBRUARY 2026

¶8

PC:-

¶9

1. By this Application, the Applicant seeks her enlargement

¶10

on bail in connection with C.R. No. 922 of 2025 dated 27^th August 2025 registered with the Thane Railway Police Station, District: Mumbai Railway for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’) and Section 3(5)of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’).

¶11

Page 1 of 7 17^th February 2026

¶12

Shivgan 8-BA-643-2026.doc

¶13

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, while the Police Officials were patrolling in the reserved coaches of Train No. 18030, which reached the Thane Railway Station, the demeanor of the Accused was found to be suspicious. Hence, they were intercepted. After following due process of law, four bags, which they were carrying were searched. Upon search, two bags in possession of the Applicant led to the recovery of 11.096 kilograms and 6.233 kilograms of Ganja respectively aggregating to 17.329 kilograms of Ganja. Two bags of other Accused namely, Amina Khan led to the recovery of 7.464 kilograms and 8.13 kilograms of Ganja respectively totaling to 15.594 kilograms of Ganja. Thus, the contraband was seized and the Applicant was arrested on 27^th August 2025.

¶14

3. The Applicant filed an application seeking bail before the Special Judge (NDPS), Thane. However, by order dated 9^th December 2025, her bail application came to be rejected.

¶15

Page 2 of 7 17^th February 2026

¶16

Shivgan 8-BA-643-2026.doc

¶17

Hence, the Applicant is before this Court for the reliefs as prayed.

¶18

4. Ms. Zehra Charania, learned counsel appearing for the Applicant, submits that the Ganja recovered from the present Applicant is of intermediate quantity. She further submits that the Applicant is in custody since August 2025 and till date, charges are not framed. She also submits that the substance alleged to have been recovered from the Applicant does not fall within the definition of ‘Ganja’ under the provisions of the NDPS Act. The FIR and the Seizure Panchanama also do not reflect any description of the purported contraband as consisting of flowering or fruiting tops, segregated from leaves, seeds and stalks. Thus, in absence of any such description in the Panchanama or the FIR, there is nothing to establish that the substance seized by the officials was in fact Ganja. Ms. Charania also places reliance on the order of the Supreme Court dated 13^th December 2023 passed in Special

¶19

Page 3 of 7 17^th February 2026

¶20

Shivgan 8-BA-643-2026.doc

¶21

Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.10734 of 2023. She thus, submits that the Applicant be released on bail.

¶22

5. Ms. Anuja Gotad, learned APP representing the State in the matter, submits that there is ample material on record in the form of CDRs and bank transactions to show that the Applicant was involved in drug peddling. However, she concedes that there are no antecedents against the present Applicant. She thus, resists the Bail Application.

¶23

6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the record with their assistance.

¶24

7. Admittedly, the quantity of Ganja recovered from the Applicant is aggregating to 17.329 kilograms, which is below the commercial quantity. The Applicant does not have any antecedents against her. Additionally, the Applicant is incarcerated since August 2025 without charges being framed as on date. I have also gone through the order passed by the Supreme Court relied upon by Ms. Charania. The Supreme

¶25

Page 4 of 7

¶26

17^th February 2026

¶27

Shivgan 8-BA-643-2026.doc

¶28

Court has observed that even though there were two accused found in possession of Ganja, the quantity held by each Accused has to be considered separately.

¶29

8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am inclined

¶30

to enlarge the Applicant on bail. It is accordingly ordered as under:-

¶31

ORDER

¶32

i) The Applicant be enlarged on bail, on

¶33

executing PR Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with

¶34

one or two local sureties in the like amount;

¶35

ii) The Applicant shall attend the Trial Court concerned on each and every date unless exempted by the orders of the Trial Court concerned;

¶36

iii) The Applicant shall also attend the Police Station concerned once in a month on first Monday between 11:00 a.m. to 02:00 p.m. till the charges are framed;

¶37

Page 5 of 7 17^th February 2026

¶38

Shivgan 8-BA-643-2026.doc

¶39

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

¶40

v) The Applicant shall not leave India, without the permission of the Trial Court;

¶41

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

¶42

vii) The Applicant shall inform her latest place of residence and 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 Police Station concerned;

¶43

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

¶44

Page 6 of 7 17^th February 2026

¶45

Shivgan 8-BA-643-2026.doc

¶46

ix) Any infraction of the aforesaid conditions

¶47

shall entail cancellation of bail.

¶48

9. The Bail 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 learned Trial Judge to decide the case on its own merits, uninfluenced by the observations made herein.

¶50

(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J)

¶51

Digitally
signed by
SHAMBHAVI
SHAMBHAVI NILESH
NILESH SHIVGAN
SHIVGAN Date:
2026.02.18
11:17:04
+0530

¶52

Page 7 of 7 17^th February 2026

Sabera B Rahim Khan v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sabera B Rahim Khan v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases