..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2812 OF 2008 Ayub Mehfuz Khan. ..Applicant. Versus Versus Versus State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent. .... Mr.Ayaz Khan, Adv. for the applicant. Mr.S.S.Pednekar, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 11th September, 2008. DATED : 11th September, 2008. DATED : 11th September, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in N.D.P.S. Special Case No.21 of 2006 pending before the learned Special Judge for N.D.P.S.cases for Greater Bombay. The said case pertains to N.D.P.S. C.R.No.4 of 2005 registered with the Anti Terrorist Squad, Mumbai. 3. The prosecution case is that the applicant is the owner of Sumo vehicle and 10 kgs. of ..(2).. heroin was found in the said vehicle. The case of the applicant is that he had sold the car to one Bansilal. The statement of Bansilal has been recorded. Bansilal has denied that the car was sold to him. The car still stands in the name of the applicant. The registration papers also shows that the car stands in the name of the applicant. 4. The learned Advocate for the applicant has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Balwinder Singh Vs. Balwinder Singh Vs. Balwinder Singh Vs. Asstt.Commr.,Customs and Central Excise Asstt.Commr.,Customs and Central Excise Asstt.Commr.,Customs and Central Excise reported in 2005 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1092 2005 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1092 2005 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1092. In the said case, heroin was found in a truck. The stand taken by the accused was that he had sold the vehicle to another person prior to the incident. However, the registration papers showed that he was the owner of the vehicle and the registration had not been changed in the name of the person to whom the vehicle was sold by the accused. In the said case the accused was convicted by the trial Court only on the ground that he was the registered owner of the vehicle. The accused person came to be acquitted in the said case after ..(3).. observing that there was no evidence to prove that he knowingly allowed any person to use the vehicle for any illegal purpose. 5. In the present case, the specific case of the applicant is that he has sold the vehicle to Bansilal. However, Bansilal has denied this fact. In the case relied upon, the evidence has been led and thereafter it was noticed that there was no evidence to prove that the accused person knowingly allowed any person to use the vehicle for any illegal purpose. In the present case, the trial has just started and one witness has been examined. The prosecution has yet to prove its case. Only after all the evidence has been led, it can be seen whether the applicant knowingly allowed the other accused to use the vehicle to carry heroin. At this stage, useful reference may also be made to Section 35 of the N.D.P.S. Act, wherein it is provided that if there is prosecution for an offence under the N.D.P.S. Act which requires a culpable mental state of the accused, the Court can presume the existence of such mental state but it shall be a defence for ..(4).. the accused to prove the fact that he had no such mental state. As stated earlier, the evidence has yet to be led. It would be open to the accused to show that he did not have necessary culpable mental state. 6. Looking to the above facts, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant bail to the applicant. Application for bail is rejected. In case the trial is not completed by 31st December, 2008, liberty to the applicant to prefer fresh application for bail. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)