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.471 of 2008. Criminal Application No.471 of 2008. Criminal Application No.471 of 2008. Akil Vazir Mohd. Shaikh @ Babu ..Applicant versus State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. Mr.Masood Peshiman for the applicant Mr. Saste for the State Coram : R.Y.Ganoo, J. Coram : R.Y.Ganoo, J. Coram : R.Y.Ganoo, J. Dated : 17th April, 2008 Dated : 17th April, 2008 Dated : 17th April, 2008 P.C. 1. The applicant is arrested in C.R.No.II 12/2006 of Mahatma Phule Chowk Police Station under Section 8(c), 21, 22, 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Affidavit in reply is filed opposing the bail application. According to the prosecution the applicant came to be accosted on 15.1.2006 wherein Ganja weighing about 27 kgs came to be seized from the possession of the applicant. Thereafter, during the course of investigation, according to the prosecution the applicant is alleged to have voluntarily produced certain quantity of Ganja, and panchanama in support of that is relied upon by the State being panchanama dated 15.6.2006, wherein the applicant is alleged to have led the police party to -2- a specific place pointed out by the applicant and huge quantity i.e. 537 kgs of Ganja was recovered at the instance of the applicant. In substance, the case as against the applicant is that he was found in possession of Ganja weighing 27 kgs and that there is recovery of Ganja weighing 537 kgs at the instance of the applicant. According to the prosecution the place where the Ganja was stored was rented by the applicant and he was in conscious possession of the same. The fact remains that the Ganja came to be recovered at the instance of the applicant. 2. The learned Advocate for the applicant made some efforts to point out some infirmities in the execution of the panchanama and the other details. However, I am not inclined to accept those arguments. The recovery against the applicant, firstly at the stage of arrest and secondly under the panchanama under Section 27, a case is made out against the applicant, and the applicant, in my view is not entitled for bail. 3. Some arguments were advanced as regards pressing the point of parity on the question of -3- grant of bail to certain other persons who were physically found at the place wherefrom the Ganja was recovered. In my view, grant of bail to those persons cannot be case of parity because the Ganja was recovered at the instance of the applicant and those two persons were the employees of the present applicant. Hence, no case on the basis of parity is made out. For the reasons stated aforesaid the application cannot be granted. Hence, I pass the following order. ORDER Application for bail is rejected. (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.)