IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Criminal Appplication No. 263 of 2010 Komalu and anr 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.Vyas, Adv for applicants Mr A.S. Fulzele, APP for State Coram : A.P. Bhangale, J Dated : 11th March 2010 1. Heard learned counsel for applicants and learned APP for State. Applicants are seeking bail in Crime No. 3001/10 registered with Police Station, Sironcha for offences under Sections 20, 22 and 27 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Application for bail before the Sessions Court was filed under Sections 437 and 439 Cr.P.C. and after its rejection, now the application is filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Accusations against the applicants are under Sections 20, 22 and 27 of the NDPS Act. 2. Section 37 of the NDPS Act speaks that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable and that limitations on granting of bail specified in the section are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. It is alleged that two bags containing 30 kg of Ganja was seized from possession of both the applicants. Learned counsel for applicants submits that applicants were not possessing Ganja at all and the person in whose possession it was, ran away from the spot. Learned APP submits that quantity seized is commercial quantity and information will have to be extracted from the applicants as to where they had business link and to whom they wanted to sell narcotic drug at Sironcha. He prayed for dismissal of application. 4. Learned counsel for applicant has placed reliance on Shankar and anr v. State of Karnataka reported in 1992 Cri.L.J. 205 to contend that since applicants were not found in actual and physical possession of narcotic drug, they be released on bail. 5. Under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, it is clearly provided that where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, accused will not be released on bail unless the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. 6. In this case, there is prima facie material to believe that narcotic drug Ganja was recovered from the possession of applicants and, therefore, ruling cited by learned counsel for applicants is of no avail. In the light of the fact that learned APP has opposed the application and perusing material available before me, it cannot be said that applicants are not guilty of the offences levelled against them and they are not likely to commit any offence while on bail. For all these reasons, application is rejected. Judge. Hsj