..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1824 OF 2008 Rahul Hiraman Donde. ..Applicant. Versus Versus Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent. .... Mrs.Sulbha A. Dhamale, Adv. for applicant. Mr.K.V.Saste, APP, for State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 24th July, 2008. DATED : 24th July, 2008. DATED : 24th July, 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 C.R.No.II-12 of 2008 of Pimpalgaon Baswant Police Station, Nashik. The said case is under Sections 22 & 29 of the NDPS Act. 3. The FIR shows that the information was received that one Gangurde is indulging in sale of ganja and she has in her possession a huge quantity of ganja which is kept in her house. Pursuant to the said information, raid came to be conducted on the house of Gangurde. As soon as the raiding party entered into the house they ..(2).. could smell a strong odour. Thereafter they went to the first floor. They saw two persons present there. Infront of two persons, there was a huge heap of ganja. On seeing them, the two persons tried to run away. The persons came to be caught and one of the said persons was the applicant. In the said raid 92 kgs. of ganja came to be seized. 4. The learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that only because the applicant was present in the house and he is son-in-law of Gangurde he has been falsely implicated in the present case. She submitted that the applicant was not aware that there was ganja in the house of his mother-in-law and the applicant has nothing to do with the said ganja. As far as this aspect is concerned, it is seen that as soon as the raiding party entered into the houses of Gangurde they could get a strong smell on the ground-floor itself. The raiding party noticed some movements on the first floor hence they went to the first floor. There they saw huge heap of ganja and the present applicant along with another person was standing near the heap of ganja. On seeing the raiding party the applicant and coaccused tried to run away. Not only the strong smell was very much ..(3).. evident when the raiding party entered in the house, but, the ganja was found in an open condition in a huge heap. In such case, it cannot be said that the applicant was not aware of the ganja in the house and he did not have any concern with the same. The act of the applicant of trying to run away as soon as he saw the raiding party shows that he was aware of the ganja. The conduct of the applicant of trying to run away when he saw the raiding party also underlines this fact. 5. The learned Advocate for the applicant thereafter submitted that Section 42 (2) of the NDPS Act has not been complied with and on the ground of non-compliance, the applicant is entitled to bail. She has placed reliance on the decision dated 26th February, 2004 of the Supreme Court in the case of Sarija Banu (A) Janarthani Sarija Banu (A) Janarthani Sarija Banu (A) Janarthani alias Janani Vs. State through Inspector of alias Janani Vs. State through Inspector of alias Janani Vs. State through Inspector of Police Police Police in SLP (Cri) 5534 of 2003. I have perused the said decision. In the said case bail was not granted on the ground that there was non-compliance of any mandatary section, but, bail was granted having regard to the special facts of the case. The said facts refer to a telegram sent to the Home Secretary and the Commissioner of ..(4).. Police and other authorities, wherein it was stated that the applicants were illegally taken into custody and thereafter their whereabouts were not known and soon thereafter the applicants were shown as arrested in a case under the NDPS Act. In the said facts of the case, bail came to be granted. 6. As far as non-compliance of the sanction is concerned, it is seen that huge quantity of ganja is involved in the present case i.e. over 92 kgs.. The said quantity is not such that it can be planted. The applicant was very much present at the spot and his conduct shows that he is involved in the present case. Looking to these facts, I am not inclined to grant bail. Application for bail is rejected. 7. The observations in the present order are only prima facie and they shall not influence the Sessions Court while deciding the trial. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)