Amina B Ibrahim Khan vs State of Maharashtra

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 9-BA-646-2026.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 7.464 kilograms and 8.13 kilograms of Ganja respectively aggregating to 15.594 kilograms of Ganja. Two bags of Co-accused namely, Sabera Khan led to the recovery of 11.096 kilograms and 6.233 kilograms of Ganja respectively totaling to 17.329 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 9-BA-646-2026.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 9-BA-646-2026.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 15.594 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 9-BA-646-2026.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 to

¶30

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

¶31

ORDER

¶32

i) The Applicant be enlarged on bail, on executing PR Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with

¶33

one or two local sureties in the like amount;

¶34

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

¶35

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;

¶36

Page 5 of 7 17^th February 2026

¶37

Shivgan 9-BA-646-2026.doc

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

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;

¶42

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

¶43

Page 6 of 7 17^th February 2026

¶44

Shivgan 9-BA-646-2026.doc

¶45

ix) Any infraction of the aforesaid conditions

¶46

shall entail cancellation of bail.

¶47

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

¶48

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.

¶49

(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J)

¶50

Digitally signed by SHAMBHAVI SHAMBHAVI NILESH NILESH SHIVGAN SHIVGAN Date: 2026.02.18 14:46:45 +0530

¶51

Page 7 of 7 17^th February 2026

Amina B Ibrahim Khan v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amina B Ibrahim Khan 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

Umesh Suresh Chand Duggal vs State of Maharashtra

Baban S/O Narayan Shinde and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shahnawaz Salim Ahamad vs the State of Maharashtra

Sabera B Rahim Khan vs State of Maharashtra

Vishal Ramesh Maderiya vs State of Maharashtra

Nijamuddin Nisar Khan vs the State of Maharashtra