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. 507 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.915 OF 2008 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION No.505 of 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL No.526 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes,Office : Memoranda of Coram, : Court’s or Judge’s orders appearances,Court ’s : orders or directions : and Registrar’s orders. : ------------------------------------------------------------ Ms Nilofar Sayyed for the applicants. Mr R.F.Lambay, Adv for Respondent No.1. Mr Francis Saldhana Spl.P.P. for D.R.I. D.P.Adsule, A.P.P.for the State. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.R. JOSHI,J. A.R. JOSHI,J. A.R. JOSHI,J. DATED : 2ND MAY,2009. DATED : 2ND MAY,2009. DATED : 2ND MAY,2009. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- 1. Heard rival submissions for some time. These are two applications for alteration of the conditions imposed while granting bail by this Court against the appellant applicant original accused no.2. Earlier order was passed by this Court on 22.1.2009 granting bail to accused nos.1 and 2. 2. By an order dated 22.1.2009, this Court granted bail to the applicants (original accused nos. 1 and 2), subject to the conditions that the applicants-accused shall execute bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- each with one or two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Registrar of the Sessions Court and shall deposit fine imposed in the impugned judgment and order of the Special Court. 3. In the present applications, it is submitted on behalf of the applicants that due to poor financial conditions they are not in position to arrange the fine amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- each and also they are not in position to secure the surety of Rs. 50,000/-each. 4. The prayers made for modification of the condition of bail are strongly opposed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India and shelter of the following three authorities was taken mainly contending that when the conviction is for the offence under the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 and mainly considering the provisions of Section 37 of the said Act and considering non payment of fine already imposed on their conviction, the applications for bail may not be favourably considered. 1. Mansingh vs. Union of India, (2006) 1 S.C.C. (Cri) 279. 2. Ratan Kumar Vishwas v. State of U.P. & Anr, 2008 AIR SCW 7719 3. Union of India vs. Rattan Mallik alias Habul, (2009) 2 S.C.C. 624. 5. Considering rival submissions and considering conviction of the applicants-accused for the offence under N.D.P.S.Act and considering that they have already undergone sentence of eight years out of ten years of imprisonment each, in the opinion of this Court, there is no substance in the present applications so as to modify the earlier conditions imposed while granting bail. Hence, Application Nos.507 of 2009 and 505 of 2009 stand dismissed and accordingly disposed of. (A.R.JOSHI,J.) (A.R.JOSHI,J.) (A.R.JOSHI,J.)