[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.2313 OF 2008 Mrs.Alibai @ Nargis wd/o Gulam Husain ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent ... Mr.Amin Solkar 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 : AUGUST 26, 2008 DATE : AUGUST 26, 2008 DATE : AUGUST 26, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicant and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in CR No.II-17 of 2008 of Ayesha Nagar Police Station, Malegaon, Dist.Nasik. The said case is under Sections 20 and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that the applicant i.e. original accused no.3 and Wasim the original accused no.2 were possessing Ganja and [-2-] they hired co-accused Bhanudas for sale of the said Ganja. 4. The learned advocate for the applicant submitted that except the statement of the co-accused Bhanudas, there is no material against the present applicant. Bhanudas has stated that he is employed by the present applicant and her son for sale of Ganja on daily wages of Rs.60/-. In the present case, the investigation is yet going on. No doubt, the statement of co-accused Bhanudas cannot be relied upon to convict the present applicant but the same can certainly be taken into consideration at the time when the investigation is going on. Looking to the facts of this case, custody of the applicant would be necessary to find out from where she has procured Ganja and to find out who else is involved in this transaction. Looking to the material on record, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. Application is rejected. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]