(1) CRI.APP. 3196.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3196 OF 2010 1. Riyaz S/o Razak Memon, Age : 32 years, Occu.: Business, R/o 703, Goodwill Garden, Sector-8, Kharghar, Dist. Navi Mumbai 2. Rahul Balkrushna Shedge Age : 41 years, Occu.: Business, R/o Flat No. A-105, Datta Krupa Building, Datta Mandir Road, Bhandup (West), Mumbai .. Applicants VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra (Copy to be served on P.P. High Court of Judicature of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad) 2. Deputy Commissioner, (Prevention) Central Excise and Customs, Aurangabad .. Respondents ... Mr. Raraq Sayed, Advocate h/f. Mr. P.S. Shinde, Advocate for the Applicants Mrs. B.R. Khekale, APP for the respondent-State Mr. Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General for the respondent no.2 ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 30TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1. This is an Application for bail. (2) CRI.APP. 3196.2010 2. The applicants have been arrested in connection with crime no. 10/NDPS/2009 for offences punishable under section 21, 22, 25 and 29 r/w. section 8(c) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (For short "The N.D.P.S. Act"). 3. On basis of clandestine information received by the Director of Revenue Intelligence, raids were conducted at three different places, i.e. at Aurangabad, Thane and Mumbai on 9th May, 2009. The applicants were found in possession of and in concern with manufacturing of or sale of certain drugs called alprazolam. The stock of alprazolam powder was attached from the manufacturing unit situated at plot no. 40-B, Georai village, Aurangabad Paithan road. 4. Chief contention of the applicants' Advocate is that the substance called alprazolam and diazepam of which powder was seized would not come within the ambit of section 8(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act. He would submit that substance seized from the manufacturing (3) CRI.APP. 3196.2010 unit may fall within the ambit of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, but surely it would not come within any of the provision of the N.D.P.S. Act. The learned Advocate points out that similarly placed present accused Riyaz Razzak Memon and Rahul Shedge were arrested and have been released by the Court of Sessions at Thane in context of Criminal Bail Application no. 115 of 2009. It is argued therefore that present applicants deserve bail on the ground of parity and on the ground that no prima facie case exist for accusing them guilty of the offence punishable under the N.D.P.S. Act. 5. When enquired, learned Assistant Solicitor General Mr. Alok Sharma states that so far no challenge is made to the bail order rendered by the Court of Sessions at Thane in context of Criminal Bail Application no. 115 of 2009. He submits however that he has received communication that the proposal for challenging such bail order is being examined by the concerned authority. 6. It appears from copy of the bail order (4) CRI.APP. 3196.2010 rendered by the Special Judge on 23.7.2010 that the bail has been granted to the similarly situated same accused persons in view of the observations in case of "Ouseph V. State of Kerala (2004)4 SCC 446 and Hussain V. State of Kerala (2000) 8 SCC 139." 7. The fact remains that similarly placed accused persons are released on bail and, therefore, the present applicants deserve same treatment on principle of equality. They cannot be treated on different footings because they are released on bail in similar circumstances by the said Court at Thane. Needless to say on basis of parity, the present bail Application deserves to be allowed. 8. It is not necessary to elaborately refer to the case laws cited by the learned Advocate appearing for the applicants. It suffices to mention here that in case of "State of Uttaranchal V. Rajesh Kumar Gupta 2007 (1) SCC 355". The Apex Court elaborately considered the scope of section 8 of the N.D.P.S. Act and rules framed thereunder. So also, a Single Bench of this Court in context of Criminal Application (5) CRI.APP. 3196.2010 no. 4741 of 2005 duly appreciated the relevant provisions. It prima facie appears that the powder recovered from the manufacturing unit of the applicants may not fall within the ambit of section 8(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act. 9. Consequently, the applicants are entitled to seek liberty. 10. In the result, the Application is allowed. The applicants are directed to be released on bail on furnishing of bail bonds alongwith two solvent sureties in sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rs. Two Lakhs) each, to the satisfaction of the Special Court at Aurangabad and on further condition that they shall not leave jurisdiction of the Special Court at Aurangabad without prior permission of the concerned Court and shall attend the concerned Court or the Office of D.R.I. as and when called or during pendency of the investigation or the enquiry of the trial, as the case may be. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp