Prasad Rajput IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.192 6 OF 2025 Pravin Vishambhar Chaudhary@ Chunni .. Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra .. Respondent ....................

 Mr. Dilip Mishra i/by Ms. Zehra Charania, Advocate for Applicant.

 Ms. Shilpa K. Gajare-Dhumal, APP for State.

 PSI – Dipesh C. Kini, Anti Narcotics Cell, Thane Crime Branch, Thane City, present.

...................

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

DATE : MAY 07, 2025 P. C . :

1. Heard Mr.Mishra, learned Advocate for Applicant and Ms.

Gajare-Dhumal, learned APP for State.

2. Applicant is indicted and arrested on 26.07.2024 alongwith alleged contraband i.e. Mephedrone weighing 70 grams.

3. Learned Advocate Mr. Mishra raises four distinct points of argument for seeking bail. He would submit that on apprehension and arrest of Applicant alongwith alleged contraband from 7 zip lock pouches the prosecution officer mixed the contents of the 7 pouches and has drawn two samples out of the same. He would submit that such mixing is impermissible and it is a clear violation of Rule 3 of the (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022. This issue is covered by the following judgments of this Court:-

(i) Union of India Vs. Bal Mukund and Ors.1 (ii) Shabbir Usman Shaikh Vs. The Union of India and Anr2 (iii) Sameer Rais Shaikh Vs. The State of Maharashtra3 (iv) Mukesh Kumar Saha Vs. The State of Maharashtra4 (v) Zaheer Gayasuddin Shaikh Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr5

4. Next he would submit that there is apparent discrepancy in issuance of Section 50 notice to the Applicant and officer who have carried out seizure panchanama has claimed to be the gazetted officer himself which is once again impermissible in law. This issue stands covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of NCT of Delhi v. Mohd. Jabir⁶. He would further submit that there is prima facie violation of Section 105 of the BNSS in as much as the act of apprehending, search, seizure and arrest of the Applicant has not been photographed as required by letter of law. This is a statutory and mandatory requirement and non-compliance thereof vitiates the prosecution case. Attention is invited to the provisions of Section 185 (5) of BNSS. This calls for a specific response from the prosecution.

5. Learned APP shall take appropriate instructions on the aforesaid transgressions and accordingly apprise the Court to enable

1 (2009) 12 SCC 161

2 BA No.731 of 2024 – Decided on 03.11.2023 3 BA No.2108 of 2023 - Decided on 03.11.2023 4 BA No.693 of 2023 – Decided on 30.11.2023

6 Cri. Appeal No. 4931 of 2024 decided on 02.12.2024

the Court to consider the case of Applicant for grant of bail on the next adjourned date.

6. Liberty to Applicant to move the vacation Court.

7. Stand over to 15^th July, 2025.

[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

P.R. Rajput