[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.2527 OF 2008 Gaurav @ Banti Ashok Yadav ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent ... Mr.Ayaz Khan Advocate for Applicant Mr.K.V.Saste APP for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : JULY 31, 2008 DATE : JULY 31, 2008 DATE : JULY 31, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard both sides. 2. The applicant is seeking bail in NDPS Special Case No. 133 of 2007. The said case pertains to CR No. 60 of 2007 of Anti Narcotic Cell, Mumbai. 3. The applicant had preferred applications for bail before the Special Court. The second application came to be rejected by order dated 25.6.2008. One of the facts which has weighed on the mind of the learned Sessions Judge which is reflected in para no.12 is that "as per entry [-2-] no.194 100 grams of Diazepam is a commercial quantity. Thus, as per CA report heroin (diacetyl morphine) was found in large percentage in 300 grams of contraband seized from the applicant/accused no.1; whereas traces of heroin (diacetyl morphine) along with other opium alkaloid and diazepam were detected in contraband weighing 2.5 kg." On perusal of the N.D.P.S. Act and the schedule thereto, it is seen that entry no.194 which deals with diazepam shows that commercial quantity of diazepam is 500 gms. and not 100 gms. as stated by the learned Special Judge. In view of the erroneous observations, in my opinion, an opportunity ought to be given to the applicant to prefer a fresh application for bail before the learned Special Judge. On such application being preferred, the learned Special Judge after hearing the matter afresh, to decide the same on merits. 4. Application is disposed of. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]