1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.596 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.513 OF 2008 Suresh Futermal Jain ....Applicant. (Original accused No.1) V/s Union of India & another ..... Respondents. ----- Mr. Tarak K. Sayed for the applicant. Mr. D.N. Salvi for Respondent No.1 – Union of India. Mr. P.A Pol, APP for Respondent No.2 – State. ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE, J. DATE: 14th October, 2008 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1. 2. Applicant has been convicted by the Trial Court for the offence punishable under section 28 read with section 22(c) and under section 8(c) read with section 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. Applicant, admittedly, is behind bars since last about 8 years. Appeal is not likely to be heard in the near future. The Apex Court in the case of Mansingh vs. Union of India, reported in (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 279 has, under similar circumstances, directed that the applicant be released on bail. Counsel for the applicant submits that all other accused have been released on bail and, therefore, on the ground of parity, the present 2 applicant also be released on bail. 3. Mr. Salvi, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 – Union of India, vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant. He submits that commercial quantity of 20 Kgs. Mandrax was seized from the applicant herein. He submits that the main matter may be fixed for final hearing. Counsel for the applicant submits that he has no objection if the appeal is fixed for hearing. However, he submits that even if the appeal is fixed for hearing peremptorily, it is not likely to be finally heard in the near future. 4. It is no doubt true that the restriction imposed under section 37 of the NDPS Act is also applicable to cases where appeals are filed by the persons who are convicted under the provisions of NDPS Act. However, in the present case, the applicant has almost undergone the sentence which is imposed by the Trial Court. Applicant has a fixed place of residence in Mumbai. This Court, in several cases, has released the accused on bail where he has undergone more than 7 years of sentence. It has to be noted here that the accused who is convicted under NDPS Act is not entitled to get parole leave. Similarly, remissions also are not permitted under the provisions of the said Act. 5. Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the applicant be released on bail in the sum of Rs 10,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. Applicant shall also furnish one local surety. Applicant shall report to 3 NCB once in a week for a period of six months and, thereafter, once in a month till disposal of the appeal. 6. Application is accordingly disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.)