IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 104 OF 2004 Union of India, through the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (P), Mumbai. ... Applicant versus Bhagwan Chander Gaikwar & anr. ... Respondents ... Mr. H.V. Mehta, for the Applicant. Mr. Rajiv Patil, for Respondent No. 1. Mr. A.S. Gadkari, A.P.P., for Respondent No. 2. ... CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. 23rd December 2004 P.C.: . This application is for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court, Raigad at Alibag dated 15th September 2003 to the Respondent No. 1. The Respondent No. 1 is the owner of the disputed premises from where contraband item (heroin) weighing 9.900 kgs. has been seized. However, it is the prosecution case that Vijay Nagayya Shetty and Nagayya Krishnayya Shetty were found in possession of the said premises at the relevant time. Even the said Vijay Nagayya Shetty and Nagayya Krishnayya Shetty have not disputed their possession of the premises in question as caretakers at the relevant time. In other words, at the relevant time, the possession of the premises in question as has been established from the record was of Vijay Nagayya Shetty and Nagayya Krishnayya Shetty and not of the Respondent No. 1 herein. Merely being owner of the premises, by itself, will not make the Respondent No. 1 liable for the offence under the provisions of the N.D.P.S.Act. Something more has to be shown. Knowledge of Respondent No. 1, merely because he was owner of the premises, regarding storage of contraband item in the premises by said Shettys or that the principal offenders were dealing with the contraband item from the premises cannot be assumed. If it is so, no fault can be found with the conclusion reached by the Court below in granting protection to the Respondent No. 1 under the order impugned before this Court. Accordingly, this application should fail and the same is dismissed.