..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1227 OF 2008 Roshan Munan Singh. ..Applicant. Versus Versus Versus State of Maharashtra ...Respondent. .... Mr.A.T.Lalla, Adv. i/b. M/s.Lalla & Lalla for the applicant. Ms.P.P.Shinde, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 7th July, 2008. DATED : 7th July, 2008. DATED : 7th July, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant and the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in C.R.No.II-03 of 2008 of Nerul Police Station. The said case is under the NDPS Act. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the applicant was found in possession of 515 gms. of Charas. At the time when the applicant came to be apprehended three other coaccused were with the applicant and the total quantity of charas found ..(2).. with all the four accused persons was 2.5 kgs.. 4. The learned APP submitted that if the quantity found with all the four accused is taken into consideration, the said quantity is 2.5 kgs. which falls under the quantity of commercial quantity and hence section 37 of the NDPS Act would be attracted. In answer to this contention, Mr.Lala has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Amarsingh Ramjibhai Amarsingh Ramjibhai Amarsingh Ramjibhai Barot Vs. State of Gujarat Barot Vs. State of Gujarat Barot Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2005 2005 2005 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1704 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1704 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1704. Reliance is placed on the observations in para-7 of the decision wherein it is stated that the quantity held by both the accused persons could not be taken together in order to come to conclusion that the case fell under the commercial quantity. 5. Mr.Lala further submitted that the quantity in possession of the present applicant does not fall under commercial quantity, as commercial quantity is above 1000 gms. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to bail. In support of this contention, Mr.Lala has placed reliance on the ..(3).. decision of this Court in the case of Raju @ Mohd. Raju @ Mohd. Raju @ Mohd. Hussain Ahmad Ali v. State of Maharashtra Hussain Ahmad Ali v. State of Maharashtra Hussain Ahmad Ali v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2003 Bom. C.R.(Cri.) 910 2003 Bom. C.R.(Cri.) 910 2003 Bom. C.R.(Cri.) 910. Mr.Lala points out that in the said case as the quantity of the contraband was found below commercial quantity, this Court held that the provisions of Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act are not attracted and hence bail came to be granted. 6. Mr.Lala also placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Sangeeta Y. Gaikwad Sangeeta Y. Gaikwad Sangeeta Y. Gaikwad vs. State of Maharashtra vs. State of Maharashtra vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2006 ALL MR 2006 ALL MR 2006 ALL MR (Cri) 2405 (Cri) 2405 (Cri) 2405 and on a unreported decision of this Court in the case of Smt.Rashida Iqbal Khan Vs. Smt.Rashida Iqbal Khan Vs. Smt.Rashida Iqbal Khan Vs. State of Maharashtra State of Maharashtra State of Maharashtra dated 21.6.2006 (Coram: R.S.Mohite, J.) in Criminal Application No.2177 of 2006. In the said two cases also two accused persons were found together with contraband and the total quantity found with each individual accused was less than the commercial quantity, however, the quantity found with both the accused taken together fell under the category of commercial quantity. In both these cases, it was held that the quantity found with each accused has ..(4).. to be taken into consideration and not the total quantity found with both the accused and as the quantity found with the accused individually was below commercial quantity, in both cases bail came to be granted. The facts in the present case and in both the cases above are similar. Hence, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant. 7. The applicant Roshan Munan Singh to be released on bail in the sum of Rs.1 lakh with one or two sureties to make up the said amount. The said sureties shall be local sureties. The applicant shall report to Nerul Police Station once in a week, till conclusion of the trial. 8. Criminal Application is disposed of accordingly. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)