IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 402 OF 2007 IN APPEAL NO. 603 OF 2007. Rubina Siraj Sayyed.... ...... ......Applicant. V/s State of Maharashtra... ...... ......Respondent. Mr.S.R.Chitnis, Sr.Adv. With Mr.H.E.Mooman, Adv. For the Applicant. Mr.P.S.Hingorani, APP For the respondent. CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. 6/5/08 PC: This is the second bail application moved by the original accused No.2. The first bail application came to be rejected by an order dated 12.12.07. The applicant has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with section 3(1)(ii) of the MCOC Act, sentenced to suffer RI for five years, pay fine of Rs.5 lacs, in default to suffer further RI for six months. The applicant is also held guilty for the offence punishable under section 3(2) read with section 2(a) of the MCOC act, sentenced to suffer RI for five years, pay fine of Rs.5 lacs and in default to suffer further RI for six months. The applicant is further held guilty for the offence punishable under section 3(4) of the MCOC Act, sentenced to 1 suffer RI for five years, pay fine of Rs.5 lacs, in default to further suffer RI for six months. The substantive sentences are to run concurrently as directed by the learned Special Judge under MCOC Act. The appeal preferred by the applicant-accused has been admitted. 2. The first bail application came to be rejected on the ground that the jurisdiction of High Court to suspend the sentence is subject to the provisions of section 21(4) of MCOC act which postulates the recording of satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is not guilty of the offence and that he/she is not likely to commit any offence if released on bail. Having held that it is not possible to record the satisfaction as is envisaged by section 21(4) the application came to be rejected. 3. The present application is moved in view of the fact that one of the co-accused has been released on bail by the Supreme Court vide order dated 3.1.2008 mainly for the reason that the accused had undergone imprisonment for about 3 1/2 years while he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for five years and if the same yardstick is to be applied the present applicant would also be entitled to be released on bail, in view of the fact that she has undergone sentence of 3 years and 11 months which fact is not disputed. Learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant has then invited my attention to two other orders passed by this Court whereby other two co-accused have been released on bail by different orders dated 2 3.4.08 and 23.4.08. Learned additional public prosecutor has submitted that the order passed by the Supreme Court is referable to the jurisdiction under article 142 of the Constitution of India. However in his submission jurisdiction of the High Court to grant bail and/or suspension of sentence is subject to conditions prescribed under section 21(4) of MCOC Act and hence has opposed the release of the applicant on bail. As I am not in a position to record the satisfaction as envisaged by section 21(4) of MCOC Act I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. Hence bail application stands rejected. 28.3.08 3