-: 1 :- bail-1243/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1243 OF 2010 IN APPEAL NO. 618 OF 2008 Aniruddh Chavan. ..Applicant Versus Union of India. ..Respondents. Mr. Anil Lalla i/b M/s. Lalla & Lalla for the Applicant. Mr. Francis Saldhana, Spl. PP for Respondent no.1 - Union of India. Mrs. A. A. Mane, APP for the Respondent no.2 – State. Coram : RANJIT V. MORE, J. Date : 8th February 2011. P. C. : 1. Heard Mr. Anil Lalla, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Saldhana, learned counsel for the Union of India and Mrs. A. A. Mane, learned APP for the State of Maharashtra. 2. This is the third bail application of the above applicant. The first bail application, being Criminal Application No. 1199 of 2008, was rejected by this court on 19/1/2009 with -: 2 :- bail-1243/10 direction to expedite the hearing of the Criminal Appeal. Further, liberty was given to the applicant to apply afresh for bail in case his appeal is not disposed of expeditiously. Thereafter, the applicant preferred another bail application, being Criminal Application No. 433 of 2009, pressing bail on the basis of Apex Court Judgment in Mansingh v. Union of India [(2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 279]. Considering the ratio laid down in Mansing’s case and after going into merits of the case, the second bail application was also rejected by me by passing speaking order on 21st January 2010. While rejecting the said application, I have considered the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Mansing as well as other judgments of the Apex Court delivered post Mansing decision, namely, of Ratan Kumar Vishwas v/s. State of UP and Anr. [(2009) 1 SCC 546], in the case of Union of India v/s Ratan Mallik @ Habul [(2009) 2 SCC 624], in the case of Union of India v/s. Shiv Shanker Kesari [(2009) 7 SCC 798], in the case of N.R.Mon v/s. Mohd. Nasimuddin [(2008) 6 SCC 721] and in the case of Collector of Customs, New Delhi v/s. Ahmadalieva Nodira [2004 SCC (Cri) 834]. -: 3 :- bail-1243/10 Merits of the case had also been gone into. 3. In the present application, Mr. Lalla, learned counsel for the applicant relies upon the Apex Court judgment in Ranjitsing B. Sharma v. State of Maharashtra & Ors [2005 Cri. L.J. 2533]. I have perused this judgment. In this case the accused were arrested under the provisions of Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act. The provisions of section 21(4) of the said Act are pari materia with the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The Apex Court in that case has held that in order to grant bail, the positive finding that the accused – appellant has not committed offence under the said Act is not necessary and it would be necessary if the Court is satisfied that in all probabilities accused may not be convicted. 4. While disposing of Criminal Application No. 433 of 2009, In paragraph no.13 have made following observations. : “13. That apart, the quantity of the drugs siezed, i.e., mandrax tablets was 220 kgs packed in 17 baskets of mangoes. Statement of the accused given under section 67 of the NDPS Act that he was involved in the transportation of this contraband from Rajsthan to Mumbai is considered by the learned Special Judge. The -: 4 :- bail-1243/10 prosecution also relied upon evidence of the owner of the premises where from this contraband was seized. The owner in terms stated that the applicant alongwith others transported the baskets containing the contraband to the house from where the same was seized.” 5. Mr. Lalla, learned counsel for the applicant could not point out any change in the circumstance after the date of passing of said order dated 19th January 2009 in earlier bail application of the present applicant. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that no case is made out for grant of bail. Application is, therefore, rejected. 7. Mr. Lalla, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is in jail for more than 9 years and therefore hearing of the appeal may kindly be expedited. Taking into consideration the fact that the applicant is in jail for last 9 years, Office is directed to place the appeal in the list of expedited appeals. 8. Criminal application stands disposed of. (RANJIT V. MORE, J.)