1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 733 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 520 OF 2008 Arun Trimbak Gawade. ... Applicant. Versus P. S. Namboodiri & Anr. ... .... Respondents. Mr. Sherali S. Khan for the Applicant. Mr. R. F. Lambay, APP for Respondent No.1. Ms. U. V. Kejriwal, APP for the Respondent – State. CORAM : BILAL NAZKI and ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATED : 3RD FEBRUARY, 2009. P. C.: In an offence under the N.D.P.S. Act two of the co-accused have already been bailed out by this Court. They were bailed out by the learned Single Judge by different orders. 2. On 15th January, 2009 when this application came to be placed before the learned Single Judge of this Court, learned Counsel for the respondent, Union of India, submitted that the matter needs to be heard in terms of the High Court Appellate Side Rules by the Division Bench. Therefore, the learned Single Judge did not pass any order with respect to 2 the present applicant and directed that the matter be placed before the Division Bench. When the matter came before us, we asked the Registry to examine the position. The Registry has reported that since the applicant has been sentenced to 14 years imprisonment in terms of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 the only cases in which sentence of death or imprisonment for life are placed before the Division Bench and therefore this matter needs to be heard by the Single Judge. But this view is contested by the learned Counsel for the respondent – Union of India on the strength of a reference by another Judge, again who has not considered the issue before whom a request was made that the matter needs to be heard by the Division Bench. Learned Counsel for the respondent insists that this court decides judicially whether the matter needs to be heard by the Division Bench or Single Judge. Let us examine this issue on the next date. Place appeal before this Court on 16th February, 2009. 3. In the meantime, there is no reason not to grant bail to the applicant when two main accused have already been granted bail and no steps have been taken by the respondents to challenge that order. This court cannot give different treatment to the accused who sail in the same boat. Therefore, we allow the bail application of the applicant and grant him 3 bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Registrar, Sessions Court concerned. 4. Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the bail granted to other accused has been granted on the strength of the judgment of the Supreme Court which view was changed later on. We shall consider the same while hearing the appeal. 5. The criminal application for bail is, accordingly, disposed of. Sd/- (BILAL NAZKI, J.) Sd/- (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)