jpc ba875-11.sxw 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 875 OF 2011 Imran Inamdar Abdulla ... Applicant Versus The Union of India and another ... Respondents Mr. S. V. Kotwal, for the applicant Mr. Francis E. Saldhana, Special P.P. for the Union of India.. Mr. K. V. Saste, APP for the State CORAM:- A.M. THIPSAY, J. DATED :- 4th August, 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard Mr. Kotwal, the learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Saldhana, the learned Special Public Prosecutor and Mr. Saste, the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant and three others came to be arrested on 14th July, 2010 by the Officers of the Customs (Prevention) Narcotic Cell, Pune, who had received some secret information. The case is that pursuant to the secret information received, that, at about 10.30 a.m. on 14th July, 2010 a Tata Safari bearing No. MH-O4-AA-8829 would be coming near Nhavare Phata,Pune-Nagar Road, a watch was kept and when the said vehicle came, three persons who were inside the vehicle and one jpc ba875-11.sxw 2 person, who was standing near the vehicle, were apprehended. It was found by the said officers that the said vehicle was containing 18 gunny bags of Ganga. The total Ganja found in the said vehicle was weighing about 272 kgs. The applicant was one of the three, who were found to be in the said vehicle at that time. 3. Mr. Kotwal, the learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant got involved in the incident unfortunately, and that he had no requisite mens-rea. Mr. Kotwal pointed out, from the statements of the accused persons recorded under the provisions of section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act, that it is an admitted position that the present applicant had entered into the said vehicle accidentally. Indeed, I find that even as per the case of the investigating agency, the applicant wanted to go to Pune for his personal work and he was waiting at Jamkhed. It is at that time, the said Tata Safari vehicle came there and the applicant found that a person known to him- Shaikh Kadir(accused No.2) was driving the same. The applicant found that the said vehicle was going to Pune and therefore, requested for a lift which was granted. It is thereafter, that the applicant came to be arrested. 4. Mr. Saldhana, the learned counsel for the Union of India, submitted that the applicant is also guilty of the alleged offences, in as much as the investigation that has been carried out shows that the jpc ba875-11.sxw 3 applicant had been told by the co-accused about the gunny bags containing Ganja having been kept in the vehicle. Mr. Saldhana also pointed out that the investigation reveals that the applicant had agreed to help the other accused in unloading the Ganja from the said vehicle, if monetary consideration would be paid to him. 5. I have considered the matter. Mr. Saldhana was fair enough to point out that accused Nos. 1 and 3 in the case have been released on bail as the investigation was not completed within the stipulated period. His contention, however, is that the other accused having been released on bail on account of default, the present applicant applicant cannot claim parity with them and that his case shall be required to be determined on merits. 6. It is clear that the vehicle was already containing Ganja and the applicant was offered a lift in the said vehicle. Whether, by sitting in the vehicle, the applicant can be said to have come in possession of the Ganja would need serious consideration. Possibly, to overcome this difficulty, the submission of Mr. Saldhana has been that the applicant 'possessed' the said Ganja when it was loaded down from the vehicle. This argument, which is somewhat stretched, even if is accepted, would not remove the difficulty in this regard. It would be difficult to accept, even on this theory, that the applicant came in possession of the entire jpc ba875-11.sxw 4 Ganga contained in the said vehicle by his act of attempting to help the other accused in unloading the Ganga from the vehicle. 7. There are some issues which would need consideration during trial. In my opinion, there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is not guilty of the alleged offence. 8. Considering all these relevant aspects of the matter, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail. 9. The application is allowed. 10. The applicant is ordered to released on bail in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh ) with one surety in amount. (A.M. THIPSAY, J.)