- (1.) KHEM Karan, J. Heard Sri A. P. Misra learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri I. B. Singh learned Counsel for the Union of India on the request of the ap pellant for bail and for suspending the execution of the sentence. The appellant has been convicted under Section 8/21 of NDPS Act, and has been sentenced to ten years R. 1 with a fine of Rs. 1 Lakh. He is in jail since 27-2- 1995. He was not on bail during the course of the trial.
(2.) THE main contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that now after the recent judgment of apex Court in Dadoo v. State of Maharashtra 2000 (41) ACC page 911 the execution of the sentence, passed under the said Act can be suspended by the Appellate Court and convict can be released on bail during the pendency of the appeal. He says that the appellant has already served more than half of the period, to which he has been sentenced and there was no proof of compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act, and he is entitled to be released on bail. Sri I. B. Singh has submitted that the condi tions prescribed under Section 37 NDPS Act, have to be kept in mind while con sidering the case of bail of convict during the pendency of the appeal. He has also drawn the attention of the Court towards sub-section (7) of Section 437 of Code, so as to highlight his arguments with regard to the meaning of the said conditions. Ac cording to the case of convict falls under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. After perusing the copy of the judgment and considering the fact that appellant has already served half of the period for which he was sentenced and there is no possibility of appeal being dis posed of in the near future. I think the appellant can be enlarged on bail. Let he be released on bail on his furnishing, a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the CJM concerned. Bail application allowed. .;