IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4543 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4543 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4543 OF 2008 Abdul Majid Aziz ...Applicant/ Orig.Accused No.2 vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Ms.Sneha Madinar i/b. Mr.Dinesh Tiwari for the Applicant. Mr.Rajesh More, APP for the State. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 2, 2009 DATED : FEBRUARY 2, 2009 DATED : FEBRUARY 2, 2009 P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. Heard Counsel for the applicant and APP for the State. 2. The applicant has been arrested under Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act. Upon specific information being received, premises of one Iftekar Dafedar was searched and it was revealed that heroine was given by the present applicant which was seized from the accused no.1’s residence. Confessional statement has been recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. 3. It is submitted that no role could be attributed - 2 - to the present applicant about the concealment of heroine by accused no.1 in the bag which was found at his residence. It is further submitted that no link has been established by the prosecution between the heroine seized from accused no.1 and the present applicant. It is further submitted that the confessional statement has been retracted. 4. This submission cannot be accepted in order to grant bail. The finding has to be recorded that there is no reasonable ground that the accused is guilty of the offence under NDPS Act or that he will not repeat the said offence if he is released on bail. Under the facts and circumstances of the present case, in view of the statement made by the accused under Section 67 and the recovery of heroine at the residence of accused no.1 on specific information being received by the police that the said heroine was given by the present applicant, no case is made out for grant of bail. There is sufficient evidence on record which indicates that the applicant had already arranged air ticket for the carrier who was supposed to carry out the heroine to - 3 - Mauritius. Taking into consideration this material, no case is made out for grant of bail. 5. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in jail since last two years and only two witnesses have to be examined. Under these circumstances, the trial court is directed to hear the case, as expeditiously as possible. 6. The application is rejected. (V.M. CANADA, J.) (V.M. CANADA, J.) (V.M. CANADA, J.)