( 1 ) cria5078.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5078 OF 2011 Yunus s/o. Shabbir Shaikh .. Applicant Age. 30 years, Occ. Labour, R/o. Indiranagar, Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur. Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr. J.R. Patil, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. B.J. Sonawane, A.P.P. for respondent/State. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 13.12.2011 P.C. :- 1. Heard learned advocates on both sides. Present applicant is arrested in connection with Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “said Act”). The F.I.R. is filed by police officer Mr. Choure and reading of the same would go to show that the police got secret ( 2 ) cria5078.11 information that the applicant is running a shop at Indira Nagar and selling Ganja in a shop where he is selling scrap and that he is in possession of Ganja. On 24.07.2011 raid was conducted. At the time of raid, as per F.I.R., present applicant was standing opposite to said shop. When the police contacted him and told him that his shop is to be checked up, he participated in said check up and Ganja worth 13 kgs. was found. In the charge-sheet sufficient material is produced to show that during recovery, Ganja was found. The neighbours have come forward to say that present applicant was carrying on scrap business in the shop where Ganja was found. Learned Advocate Mr. J.R. Patil submitted that police have not produced any documentary evidence to show that said shop was under the control of the applicant. This argument cannot be accepted because when police wanted to raid the shop, they told the applicant that they would like to raid the shop and at that time the applicant joined the police and in his presence the shop was ( 3 ) cria5078.11 raided. If at all this applicant had no concern with the shop, he could have disown the shop and could have allowed raid in his absence. In view of this, arguments advanced in this behalf is required to be rejected. 2. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that the quantity of Ganja found is less than commercial quantity i.e. 13 kg. and therefore case of the applicant falls under section 20 clause (B) of the said Act and maximum punishment which can be imposed is 10 years. He also pointed out that this is not a case falling under section 37 of the Act, where the Court is required to apply certain parameters before deciding bail application. True, the provisions of section 37 of the said Act are not attracted. At the same time the Court has discretion to entertain the application and said discretion either to granted bail or refuse is not taken away by any of the provisions of the said Act. ( 4 ) cria5078.11 3. It is noted that the applicant is found in possession of Ganja of about 13 kgs. The applicant is dealing in scrap. The very finding of Ganja in scrap shop clearly indicates that the applicant was carrying on business of dealing in Ganja in a secret manner. In my view, prima facie case is made out against the applicant as regards offence under section 20 of the said Act. 4. In my view, looking to the conditions in which present applicant is carrying on business, it is apparent that if the applicant is granted bail, he will not be available for trial. The quantity of Ganja may not be commercial quantity, but it is 13 kg. The allegations against the applicant are serious and as such the applicant is not entitled to bail. Hence, application for bail is required to be rejected. Hence, following order is passed :- ( 5 ) cria5078.11 5. The application for bail is rejected. 6. It is clarified that these observations were required to be made purely to disposed of this bail application only. [R.Y. GANOO, J.] snk/2011/DEC11/cria5078.11