1 cri.appln 949-2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 949 OF 2007 Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, Mumbai ...Applicant vs. Vijay Anant Thorve ...Respondent (Orig.Accused No.3) WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 950 OF 2007 Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, Mumbai ...Applicant vs. Umesh Badrinath Bangur ...Respondent (Orig.Accused No.2) Mr.Mandra Goswami, Spl.PP for the Applicant. Mr.Y.M. Nakhwa, APP for the State. Mr.Shirish Gupte, Senior Counsel i/b. Mr.Ayaz Khan and Ms.Zehra Charania for the Respondent in Cri.Appln.No.950/2010. Mr.Sunil V. Ghadge i/b. M/s.Lalla & Lalla for the Respondent in Cri.Appln.No.949/2010. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : DECEMBER 14, 2010 2 cri.appln 949-2007 P.C :- 1 Heard the learned Special PP for the applicant, the learned Counsel for the respondents and the learned APP for the State. 2 Prosecution case in brief is that on 17th May, 2006, the complainant received information that a container of Maersk Line of 40 ft. bearing No.MSKU 8636761 shipped on board vessel  Maersk Rotterdam on 18th April, 2006 at Port Guayaquil, Ecaudor, bound for JNPT, India, was suspected to contain 200 kg. Of Cocaine. On search, 200 kg. of Cocaine was found on the top of the stack of logs of teak. The consignor of the said container was M/s.Megha International Pvt.Ltd., Singapore and consignee was M/s.OPM International Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai. One Omprakash Nagoja was the Director of Consignee, M/s.OPM International Pvt.Ltd., having 24% share. Other two shareholders, Mrs.Nirmal and Madhumala, were having 25% and 50% 3 cri.appln 949-2007 shares, respectively. They are the close relatives of the Directors of M/s.Royal Global Export Pvt.Ltd., Singapore, who had paid the freight and booking charges of the said container. Accused Umesh was also Director of the company but he was not a shareholder but was Chartered Accountant. Third Accused Vijay was the Managing Director of Mayur Clearing Agency. All the three accused persons filed bail applications and by order dated 5th March, 2007, the learned Special Judge refused bail to Omprakash who was the Director of the Consignee company but granted bail to other two accused viz. Umesh and Vijay. The Intelligence Officer, who is the complainant, has filed these two applications for cancellation of bail to those two accused persons. 3 The learned Counsel for the accused Umesh makes a statement that after investigation and filing of charge sheet, even Omprakash was granted bail by the trial court, however, that order has been challenged and the application for cancellation 4 cri.appln 949-2007 of his bail is still pending. The respondents in these present two applications were granted bail in March 2007 and these applications for cancellation of bail were filed shortly thereafter, but unfortunately, they came up for hearing now after three years and nine months. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Special Judge had minutely considered all the facts and tried to find out who was really involved in the import of Cocaine. In view of the facts noted above, Omprakash appears to be the Director of the Consignee company. Other two shareholders of the company are close relatives of the company which had hired and made the payment for the container. The consignor was a foreign company. As far as Umesh is concerned, even though he was one of the Directors of consignee company, he himself did not have any share in the said company. Similarly, accused Vijay is not shareholder in that company, neither he was consignor nor he was consignee. He was only Clearing House Agent. His role would start only after the 5 cri.appln 949-2007 goods were required to be cleared. In the present case, he was not required to play any role as the container was searched and the Cocaine was seized even before the stage of clearing the goods in the container. Under these circumstances, I do not see any reason to interfere with the order granting bail to the present respondents. 4 For the aforesaid reasons, both these applications stand rejected. (J.H. BHATIA, J.)