1 Cri.Appln.No.696/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 696 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 646 OF 2009 Sardar Wali Mohammad ...Applicant vs. Union of India & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.Anil Lalla i/b. M/s.Lalla & Lalla for the Applicant. Mr.S.K. Shinde and Mr.Mandar Goswami for Respondent No.1. Mrs.M.R. Tidake, APP for the State. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : AUGUST 3, 2010 P.C. :- 1 Heard Counsel for the applicant and Counsel for respondent no.1. 2 This is an application for bail filed by the applicant  original accused no.4 who has been convicted by the Special Court for the offence 2 Cri.Appln.No.696/2010 punishable under Section 27A red with 21(c) of the NDPS Act and is sentenced to suffered RI for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.1 lakh and in default, to suffer further RI for six months. 3 Counsel for the applicant submitted that accused no.1 has been granted bail by this Court by order dated 27th April, 2010. He submitted that the case of the present applicant stands at highest footing than that of original accused no.1. He submitted that the role attributed to the present applicant is that he had provided finance for the purchase of contraband. He submitted that the only circumstance on which reliance is placed by the prosecution is that the retracted statement of the applicant and entry in the bank account of accused no.1 to the effect that the amount of Rs.2 lakhs was deposited in his bank over a period of time. It was submitted that the accused had explained the said circumstance and it was brought on record that the 3 Cri.Appln.No.696/2010 said amount was deposited in order to meet the medical expenses. 4 Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the applicant was a habitual offender. He submitted that two other cases are filed against him and this was the third case in which he was convicted. However, Shri Lalla, Counsel for the applicant submitted that in both these cases, the applicant was acquitted and therefore, it could not be said that he is a habitual offender. 5 While deciding an application under Section 27 of the NDPS Act, the Court has to record two fold reasons, firstly, it has to be held that there are reasonable grounds for coming to the conclusion that the accused is likely to be acquitted and secondly, the court also has to record the prima facie finding that the accused is not likely to commit the same offence again if released on bail. In my view, taking into consideration the fact that 4 Cri.Appln.No.696/2010 two cases were filed against the applicant and though he is acquitted of the said cases, in the present case, the applicant has been convicted and if released on bail, it is difficult to say that the applicant may not commit the said offence again and therefore, it is not possible for this court to record the said finding. Therefore, since the criteria for grant of bail is not established, it is not possible to grant bail to the applicant. Though prima facie it does appear that there are reasonable grounds for coming to the conclusion that the applicant may not be convicted, taking into consideration the fact that his confession has been retracted and the other reasons given in the order in the bail application filed by the accused no.1 in Criminal Application No.64/2010 in order dated 27th April, 2010, application for bail is rejected. However, the appeal is fixed for final hearing in the week commencing from 23rd August, 2010. (V.M. KANADE, J.)