1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICAITON NO.140 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.873 OF 2007 Mr.Raymond Ishola Yusuf. ..Applicant. V/s. Niraj Rai,IO, NCCP & Anr. ..Respondents. Mr.Atul Sarpande for Applicant. Mr.J.C.Satpute for Respondent No.1. Mrs.P.P.Shinde, APP for Respondent-State. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE : APRIL 10, 2008. DATE : APRIL 10, 2008. DATE : APRIL 10, 2008. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. Although the Applicant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c), 21, 28 and 23 of the NDPS Act and under Sections 135(a)(ii) of the Customs Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years on each count and to pay fine of Rs.One Lakh on each count, however, as admittedly, the Applicant has undergone substantial part of the said sentence(since 30.7.1999); coupled with the fact that it is unlikely that the Appeal preferred by the Applicant would be taken up for 2 hearing in immediate near future, as it is yet to be set down for final hearing; following the exposition of the Apex Court in the case of Mansingh V/s.Union Mansingh V/s.Union Mansingh V/s.Union of India 2006(1) SCC (Cri) 279 2006(1) SCC (Cri) 279 2006(1) SCC (Cri) 279 and the case of Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja V/s. State of Gujarat Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja V/s. State of Gujarat Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja V/s. State of Gujarat reported in (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 370 reported in (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 370 reported in (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 370, in the interest of justice, the Applicant will have to be released on bail. 3. Counsel for the Respondent however, strenuously opposed granting bail to the Applicant having regard to the fact that the Applicant has no fixed place of residence, if released on bail and that the Applicant is foreign national, which would facilitate the Applicant to flee from the ends of justice. 4. The argument though attractive can be addressed by imposing strict condition for release of the Applicant. That would address the apprehension of the Respondent that the Applicant may flee from the ends of justice. In the circumstances, the Applicant is ordered to be released on bail, but on the following condition: (a) The Applicant- Raymond Ishola Yusuf 3 shall deposit fine amount ordered by the Trial Court as condition precedent. (b) The Applicant- Raymond Ishola Yusuf is ordered to be released on bail in connection with the offence in NDPS Spl. Case No. 301 of 1999, if not required in any other case, on executing bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rs.One Lakh only) with two sureties in the like amount. (b) The Applicant shall report daily between 8 a.m. to 10 a.m. to the Narcotics Control Customs Prevention, New Custom House, Ballard Pier, Mumbai till further orders to be passed by this Court and/or disposal of Appeal. (c) The Applicant shall not travel outside the territory of Greater Mumbai without written permission of this Court. (d) The Applicant shall inform his latest place of residence immediately after being released and/or change of residence, if any from time to time, to the Narcotics Control 4 Customs Prevention, New Custom House, Ballard Pier, Mumbai, where he would report. (e) The passport of the Applicant already deposited with the Narcotics Control Customs Prevention, Ballard Pier, shall be retained by the said Authority till further order to be passed by this Court. 5. Application disposed off on the above terms. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)