-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 156 OF 2009 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 156 OF 2009 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 156 OF 2009 IN IN IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 972 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 972 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 972 OF 2007 IN SPL. N.D.P.S.CASE NO. 26 OF 2003 Smt. Osho Olautin Anikezan ¦.. Applicant/Appellant. V/s. Union of India and another ¦ .. Respondents. (through N.C.B.,Mumbai Zonal Unit, Mumbai. --- Mr.Atul Sarpande for the Applicant/Appellant. Mr. D.N.Salvi for Respondent No.1. Mr.Y.M.Nakhawa, APP for Respondent no.2 -State. --- CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 03RD APRIL, 2009 DATED : 03RD APRIL, 2009 DATED : 03RD APRIL, 2009 P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. This application is taken out by the applicant for enlarging him on bail during pendency of the appeal. 3. The applicant is original accused no.1 in Spl. N.D.P.S. Case No. 26 of 2003. She alongwith the original accused nos.2 and 4, by the impugned judgment and order, came to be convicted for an offence punishable under -: 2 :- section 29 read with section 8(c), section 21 read with section 8 (c), and section 28 read with section 23 and 8(c) of the NDPS Act and on each count sentenced to suffer R.I. for ten years. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 4. The applicant preferred criminal appeal no. 972 of 2007. The same is admitted and pending for final disposal. It is submitted by Mr. Sarpande, the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is taking medical treatment from Tata Memorial Hospital for her ailment. He further submitted that the original accused nos. 2 and 4 have been released on bail by this court on the ground that they have already undergone half of the sentence awarded by the learned Special Judge under impugned judgement and order. He submitted that the applicant’s case being similar, she deserves to be enlarged on bail. 5. Mr. Salvi, learned counsel for the respondent no.1- Union of India on the contrary opposed the bail application on the ground that the role played by the applicant in the alleged crime is not similar to that of the original accused nos. 2 and 4 inasmuch as the present applicant was found in possession with contraband. 6. The applicant is sixty years old lady. The medical -: 3 :- report dated 1.4.2009 from the Medical Officer, Mumbai District Women Prison, Byculla, Mumbai do show that the applicant is taking treatment from Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai and even for some time she was admitted in the hospital. It is not disputed that the applicant has already undergone half of the sentence awarded by the learned Special Judge under the impugned judgment and order. Though the appeal is on the board of final hearing, the same is not likely to reach for final hearing in the near future. 7. In above facts coupled with the decision of the Apex Court in Mansingh vs. Union Mansingh vs. Union Mansingh vs. Union of India, f India, f India, reported in 2006 (1) SCC (Cri) 279, I am of the view that the case for bail is made out by the applicant. I, therefore, dispose of this application by passing following order. ORDER ORDER ORDER i. On depositing Rs. One lakh before the trial court by the applicant -Smt. Osho Olautin Anikezan, she be released on bail with one or two surety to make out the said amount. ii. The applicant shall report to the Office of NCB, Mumbai once in a week initially for a period of six months and thereafter, once in the fortnight till disposal of the -: 4 :- appeal. iii. Before being released on bail, the Office of the NCB, Mumbai shall be informed by the applicant her address on which she will be staying during pendency of the appeal and she shall immediately report any change in her address to the office of NCB, Mumbai. iv. During the pendency of the appeal, the applicant shall not leave Mumbai without permission of the court. v. The applicant shall remain present at the time of final hearing of the appeal. (R.V.MORE,J.) .....