1 ABA 737-2011 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.737 OF 2011 Deepak Varandmal Wadhwa .Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra .Respondent Mr.A.H.H.Ponda, Advocate, for the Applicant Mrs.A.A.Mane, APP, for the Respondent - State Mrs.Namarata Patil, I.O. - Dy.S.P., Khalapur Division CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 18TH OCTOBER, 2011 P.C. . Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. This is an application for anticipatory bail by one of the four Directors of a resort owned by his family, who apprehends arrest for alleged involvement for the offence punishable under Sections 20(b), 22 and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ( NDPS Act for short) registered at Khalapur Police 2 ABA 737-2011 Station, District Raigad vide C.R.No.15 of 2011. By an elaborate order dated 16th September, 2011 the applicant had been granted interim protection which is continuing till today. The order re-counts facts of the case and therefore, it is not necessary to repeat those facts here again, except that on information received by the Superintendent of Police, he sent the informer to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who conducted the raid after hearing the informer. At the raid, it was found there were 290 participants at the party of whom 207 of the 240 persons, who were examined tested positive for drugs consumption, and results of 10 more are expected. In one of the rooms in the resort 430 mg Cockain, some suspicious liquid with french label, 56.410 gram Charas, 1 Extasy tablet weighing 240 mg grams, 2 Sugar cubes weighing 19.22 were found. 1 Kg 900 gm Ganja was seized on the laun where the party was going on. Provisions of Section 42 of the Act 3 ABA 737-2011 were admittedly not complied, as according to the learned APP, they are not required to be complied with, since Section 43 of the Act applied. This information was neither recorded by the Superintendent of Police, who received it first, nor by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, before proceeding for raid but a report was made promptly thereafer. 3. It is not in dispute that several persons have been bailed out, one of the reasons being non-compliance of Section 42. Those orders have not been questioned. The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that for indicating the complicity of the applicant, it has to be shown that the applicant had knowledge that the resort was going to be used for such a party where drugs were to be consumed. The learned APP upon instructions from the investigating officer, Mrs.Namarata Patil is not in a position to 4 ABA 737-2011 state that any of the accused persons, who were arrested and interrogated by the police stated about knowledge of the applicant about probable use of drugs at the party. The learned APP submits that the applicant was in touch with the Chief Operating Officer, (who has been bailed out) and the Resident Manager, (who is also on bail) on the date of raid. She has made available for my perusal call details between the applicant and his Chief Operating Officer as well as Resident Manager. It is not necessary to comment upon the details collected by the officer at this stage. Their worth will be considered at the trial by the learned trial Judge. The learned APP also submits that the complicity of the applicant is indicated by the fact that two witnesses Pradeep Janakraj Kaushal and Laxme had stated after the raid at the instance of the applicant the CCTV camera used for Video recording had been removed. How this could indicate applicant's knowledge of use of drugs 5 ABA 737-2011 is not clear. It is also not shown that since the time this application was entertained and applicant was provided protection, he was not co-operating with the investigating officer. He was available for interrogation. 4. In view of this, applicant's being in custody for the purpose of further investigation is thoroughly unwarranted. Interim order dated 16th September, 2011 is confirmed with the following modifications. In the event of arrest, applicant be released on bail on his furnishing P.R.Bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one or more solvent sureties in the aggregate sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on the condition that the applicant shall attend the office of the investigating officer as & when required by the investigating officer. 5. Criminal Application stands disposed of. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.) 6 ABA 737-2011