1 jpc/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1259 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 552 OF 2008 Ousmane Diallo .. Applicant Vs. The Union of India .. Respondent Shri Anil Lalla i/b Lalla & Lalla for the Applicant Shri J. C. Satpute for Union of India. Shri Amit Sale for the Respondent CORAM :SMT. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE : 22nd July, 2009. ORAL ORDER 1. Heard. 2. The applicant accused has preferred this appeal as he is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 21 of NDPS Act for 10 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 1 lakh. The judgement was declared on 27.4.2007 and accused is in custody since 12.11.2002. He has completed six years and 8 months in the custody. 3. Mr. Lalla, learned Counsel for the applicant, has submitted that this application for bail is based on the ruling of the Hon ble ’ Supreme Court in the case of Mansing Vs. Union of India reported in (2006) I Supreme Court Cases (Cri.) 279. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 389, Suspension of “ sentence pending the appeal; release of appellant on bail- Refusal by High Court- Propriety- Appellant, guilty of offence 2 punishable under sections 8/18 and 8/15 of the Narcotic and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs.1 lakh on each count, had already undergone more than seven years of imprisonment- No likelihood of the appeal being heard in the near future- On such facts, on the appellant depositing the amount of fine, the execution of the sentence of imprisonment shall remain suspended during the hearing of the appeal by the High Court, and the appellant shall be released on Bail. 4. He has further relied on the unreported judgement of this Court in Cri. Application 737 of 2007 in Cri. Appeal No. 449/2007 on the said point. Learned Counsel Shri Lalla has pointed out that in both these cases, the accused were convicted for 10 years R.I. with fine Rs. 1 lakh. However, the accused were released on bail pending their appeals on the point that the appeals were not likely to come for hearing in near future. 5. In the present case, a Foreign national is convicted for 10 years I. R. with fine of Rs. 1 lakh. for carrying 3 k.g. Heroin. At present the appeals of the year 2002 - accused in jail are taken up for bearing. This appeal being of 2007, is not likely to come up for hearing in the near future. I am bound by the Judgement and order passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Mansing Vs. Union of India (Supra ’ ). The nature of offence, period of conviction, so also the period of sentence under gone are almost same except the accused in the present case is foreign national. However, this cannot justify any discrimination between Indian accused and foreign national accused. Hence, the application is 3 allowed, however, with a view to secure presence of the accused who is a foreign national, some stringent conditions are to be saddled. 6. In the result, the application for bail is allowed with following conditions. 1. The applicant-accused is directed to be released on Bail of Rs. 2 lakhs (Rs. Two lakhs) with two local sureties of Rs. One lakh each. 2. The applicant- accused to deposit Rs. 1 Lakhs ( Rs. One lakhs) fine amount. 3. The Applicant- accused shall report to Narcotics Control Bureau, Mumbai/Concerned Police Station once in a week between 12.00 noon to 13.00 p.m. during the Pendancy of the Trial. 4. Passport of the applicant-accused shall be retained with the concerned Police Station. (MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)