1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Criminal Application No. 3044 of 2009 Padnam v. State of Maharashtra ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr R.K. Tiwari, Advocate for applicant Mr D.P. Thakare, APP for State Coram: A.P. Bhangale, J Dated : 24th September 2009 1. Heard learned counsel for parties. Applicant is seeking bail in Crime No. 6002/08 registered with Railway Police Station, Gondia under Section 22 of the NDPS Act. 2. Learned counsel for applicant contends that quantity allegedly found in possession of applicant was 4 kg and 400 gms of ganja which is much less than the commercial quantity of 20 kg. Therefore, restrictions imposed by virtue of Section 37 of the Act would not apply in this case. He placed reliance on Govindprasad v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2004 All MR (Cri) 635 and Uttam v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2006 All MR (Cr9i) 794. 3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the application on the sole ground that applicant hails from the State of Orissa and he may not be available at the trial. 2 4. In the cases cited before me, bail was granted to the applicants therein on the ground that they were possessing less than commercial quantity of ganja. In this case admittedly applicant allegedly possessed ganja of 4 kg and 400 gms which quantity is less than commercial quantity. 5. To meet the apprehension expressed by learned APP that applicant may not be available at the trial, he being the resident of Orissa State, learned counsel for applicant has relied upon Sanjay v. State of Gujarat reported in II (2001) CCR 279 (SC). In the case before the Apex Court, accused hailed from the State of UP while the trial was pending in the State of Gujarat. The Apex Court held that the apprehension expressed by prosecution that accused may abscond cannot be the ground to refuse bail if he is otherwise entitled thereto. 6. No ruling contrary to above has been pressed into service by learned APP. 7. Since the quantity of ganja allegedly found in possession of applicant was less than commercial quantity; restrictions imposed by Section 37 of the NDPS Act cannot be applied and for allaying the apprehension expressed by learned APP alone it is not proper to keep the applicant in jail, I am inclined to order release of the applicant on bail. In order to secure presence of applicant at the trial, stringent conditions can be imposed. 8. Applicant be released on bail in Crime No. 6002/08 registered with Railway Police Station, Gondia under Section 22 of the NDPS Act upon furnishing PR Bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- with two local solvent sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Judge. Applicant shall leave his permanent address along with telephone/cell phone 3 number, if any, with the trial Court and shall communicate change, if any therein, in future. He is directed to abide by a condition that if he is unable to be present in the trial Court on any day, an application on his behalf shall be filed by a counsel who should be present in the Court. In the application he must state unconditionally that he will not dispute his identity as an accused in the case and that he has no objection for the trial to proceed even in his absence. Without conforming to this condition if he is absenting himself on any posting date, it is would open to the trial Court to cancel the bail granting to applicant. Application disposed of. Hamdast granted. Judge. hsj