..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2586 OF 2008 1. Rajivkumar Umesh Singh, & 2. Ravi Ranjan Birendra Singh. ..Applicants. Versus Versus Versus State of Maharashtra ...Respondent. .... Mr.A.T.Lalla, Adv. i/b. M/s.Lalla & Lalla for the applicants. Mr.K.V.Saste, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 21st August, 2008. DATED : 21st August, 2008. DATED : 21st August, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicants and the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicants are seeking bail in C.R.No.II-03 of 2008 of Nerul Police Station. The said case is under the NDPS Act. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the applicants were found in possession of 508 gms. & 510.05 gms. of Charas respectively. At the time when the applicants came to be apprehended two other coaccused were with the applicants and the ..(2).. total quantity of charas found with all the four accused persons was 2.5 kgs.. 4. The learned APP submitted that if the quantity found with all the four accused is taken into consideration, the said quantity is 2.5 kgs. which falls under the quantity of commercial quantity and hence section 37 of the NDPS Act would be attracted. In answer to this contention, Mr.Lalla has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Amarsingh Amarsingh Amarsingh Ramjibhai Barot Vs. State of Gujarat Ramjibhai Barot Vs. State of Gujarat Ramjibhai Barot Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2005 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1704 2005 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1704 2005 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1704. Reliance is placed on the observations in para-7 of the decision wherein it is stated that the quantity held by both the accused persons could not be taken together in order to come to conclusion that the case fell under the commercial quantity. 5. Mr.Lalla further submitted that the quantity in possession of the present applicants does not fall under commercial quantity, as commercial quantity is above 1000 gms. Therefore, the applicants are entitled to bail. In support ..(3).. of this contention, Mr.Lalla has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Raju Raju Raju @ Mohd. Hussain Ahmad Ali v. State of @ Mohd. Hussain Ahmad Ali v. State of @ Mohd. Hussain Ahmad Ali v. State of Maharashtra Maharashtra Maharashtra reported in 2003 Bom. C.R.(Cri.) 910 2003 Bom. C.R.(Cri.) 910 2003 Bom. C.R.(Cri.) 910. Mr.Lalla points out that in the said case as the quantity of the contraband was found below commercial quantity, this Court held that the provisions of Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act are not attracted and hence bail came to be granted. 6. Mr.Lalla also placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Sangeeta Y. Gaikwad Sangeeta Y. Gaikwad Sangeeta Y. Gaikwad vs. State of Maharashtra vs. State of Maharashtra vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2006 ALL MR 2006 ALL MR 2006 ALL MR (Cri) 2405 (Cri) 2405 (Cri) 2405 and on a unreported decision of this Court in the case of Smt.Rashida Iqbal Khan Vs. Smt.Rashida Iqbal Khan Vs. Smt.Rashida Iqbal Khan Vs. State of Maharashtra State of Maharashtra State of Maharashtra dated 21.6.2006 (Coram: R.S.Mohite, J.) in Criminal Application No.2177 of 2006. In the said two cases also two accused persons were found together with contraband and the total quantity found with each individual accused was less than the commercial quantity, however, the quantity found with both the accused taken together fell under the category of commercial quantity. In both these cases, it was ..(4).. held that the quantity found with each accused has to be taken into consideration and not the total quantity found with both the accused and as the quantity found with the accused individually was below commercial quantity, in both cases bail came to be granted. 7. Mr.Lalla the learned Advocate for the applicants submitted that co-accused Roshan Munan Singh has been granted bail by this Court and the quantum found with co-accused Roshan Munan Singh was 515 gms. of charas. It is submitted that the case of the applicants and that of co-accused Roshan Munan Singh is same and hence the applicants are entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. Mr.Saste, the learned APP has submitted that punishment for the offence is upto 10 years and this fact was not considered when the bail came to be granted to co-accused. The Section provides for imprisonment upto 10 years and the Section does not state that the imprisonment shall be for 10 years. Therefore, the discretion lies with the Court as to the quantum of punishment to be imposed on the ..(5).. accused. In any event, the facts in the present case and in the case of Roshan Munan Singh is similar. Hence, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicants. 8. The applicants Rajivkumar Umesh Singh, & Ravi Ranjan Birendra Singh to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.1 lakh each with one or two sureties to make up the said amount. The said sureties shall be local sureties. The applicant shall report to Nerul Police Station once in a week, till conclusion of the trial. 9. Criminal Application is disposed of accordingly. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)