UTTAM DHANIRAM BARMAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for grant of bail. The applicant has been charged for the offence punishable under Section 20 of the narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act). On an information received on 16. 10. 2005, the applicant was apprehended and on search it was found that the applicant was in possession of Ganja weighing 8 kg. and 20 gms. After complying with the necessary formalities, the applicant was arrested on the same day. The applicant has been charge sheeted vide Charge sheet dated 30. 11. 2004. Heard Shri A. K. Bhangde, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and Shri Parihar, the learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent/state. Shri Bhangde, the learned Counsel submits that assuming without admitting that Ganja weighing 8 kg. and 200 gms, was seized from the applicant, since it was below 20 kg. , it cannot be said to be for a commercial purpose. He, therefore, submits that provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS act are not applicable for the present case. He, further submits that the mandatory provisions with regard to Sections 42, 50, 55 and 57 of the ndps Act have not been complied with by the respondent in this case. It is submitted that on this count, the applicant deserves to be released on bail. Shri Bhangde, the learned Counsel relyed on the judgment of the apex Court in the case of Sarija Banu (A) Janarthani alias Janani and another v. State through Inspector of Police, 2004 AIR SCW 7488 and the judgment of the learned Single judge of this Court in the case of Govindaprasad Amritlal Burman v. State of Maharashtra. , 2004 All MR (Cri) 635 : 2004 (2) B Cr C 181 and in the case of Raju @ Mohd. Hussain s/o Ahmad All v. State of Maharashtra. 2003 (4) Mh. LJ. 625 i have perused the charge sheet. From the perusal of the charge sheet, it is clear that the Ganja alleged to be in possession of the applicant is weighing 8 kg and 200 gms. It can thus be seen that it cannot be said that the said possession was for commercial purpose. It can also be seen that the applicant is charged with an offence punishable under Section 20 and not for the offence punishable under Sections 19 and 24 of the NDPS Act. In that view of the matter, the provisions of Section 37 are not applicable to the facts of the present case. It is not disputed that the applicant has already been charge sheeted. There are no criminal antecedents as against the applicant. No doubt that the offence is a serious one. However, that cannot be a sole ground for denying the bail. Since the charge sheet is already filed, the custody of the applicant is not necessary for the purpose of interrogation or investigation. Further there are no criminal antecedents against the applicant. All the witnesses are government officers and, therefore, there is no possibility of they being influenced by the applicant, if he is enlarged on bail. The interest of the prosecution can be taken care of by imposing stringent condition on the applicant. Hence this order. The applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a PR bond of Rs. 50,000/ (rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount. The sureties shall be from one who are residing within the Corporation limits of Nagpur City. The applicant shall report to the Police Station. Ganeshpeth, nagpur twice every week during 12:00 noon to 02:00 p. m. and shall not leave the Corporation area of Nagpur without prior permission of the Police Station Officer, Ganeshpeth, Nagpur. The applicant shall cooperate with the investigation. The applicant shall not in any way make an attempt to influence the witness or tamper with the evidence. Application allowed.