[NDPS Act] Female's Search Must Be In Seclusion; Conducting Search In Presence Of Males Vitiates Seizure: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has granted bail to a woman accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, holding that the search and seizure of contraband from her was prima facie vitiated because the search was conducted in the presence and gaze of male police personnel and a male panch witness. The Court observed that Section 50(4) of the NDPS Act requires a female accused to be searched in seclusion and to the exclusion of males, and that merely having a female police officer conduct the search does not satisfy this requirement.

Justice Shyam C. Chandak was hearing a bail application filed in connection with a case registered under Sections 8(c), 21(b), 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. According to the prosecution, the applicant and another accused were found in the Bail Bazar area. During their personal searches, 111 grams of heroin was allegedly recovered from the other accused, while 57 grams of MD was allegedly recovered from a purse carried by the applicant.

The Counsel for the applicant argued that Section 50(4) of the NDPS Act had been violated because, although a female police head constable conducted the search, it took place in the presence and gaze of a male police inspector and a male panch witness.

The Court perused the spot panchnama and noted that the applicant and her purse had been searched by a female police head constable in the presence and gaze of a male panch witness and a male police inspector. It found that the search had not been conducted in seclusion and was therefore prima facie in violation of Section 50(4) of the NDPS Act.

Relying on various precedents, the Court reiterated that the requirement of Section 50(4) is mandatory and cannot be diluted even on the ground that a female was not available at the time of search.

“… there is no escape from a prima facie conclusion that the search and seizure of the contraband from the applicant is vitiated on the count that it was conducted in the presence and gaze of a male police officer Mr. Dukale as well as a male panch,” the Court remarked.

The Court concluded that this permitted an inference that the applicant might not be guilty of the alleged offences. Noting that she had no criminal antecedents, the Court held that the restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act were not attracted and that she was entitled to bail.

The Court directed that the applicant be released on a personal recognisance bond of ₹50,000, with one or two sureties in the like amount.

Case Title: Jaibun Mohammed Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra [Bail Application No. 3695 of 2026]