IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.1442 of 2011 Radhey Shyam Yadav son of Sadhu Yadav, resident of village-Khapahi Tand, Police Station-Thakraha, (Bhitahan), District-West Champaran Versus The State of Bihar & Anr. ----------- 2 25.02.2011 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State and the learned counsel for the Union of India who also files the counter affidavit. Petitioner is in custody in connection with N.D.P.S. Case No.17 of 2010 for the offence punishable under Sections 20, 22 and 23 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Substance of allegation against the petitioner is of alleged recovery of 10 kilogram of Ganja. The prayer for bail of this petitioner was earlier rejected by this Court by order dated 23.06.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the alleged offence the petitioner having a clean antecedent has remained in custody since 17.3.2010. He further submits that the alleged seized quantity of Ganja is far below the commercial quantity of Ganga and in view of the matter the prayer of the petitioner requires reconsideration. Taking into consideration the circumstances and considering the submissions of the learned counsel, let the petitioner namely, Radhey Shyam Yadav, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge, Bettiah, District-West Champaran in connection with N.D.P.S Case No. 17 of 2010 arising from Inerwa P.S. Case No.07 of 2010 subject to the following conditions: 2 1. that the father of the petitioner would stand as one of the bailors and who would be under a duty to inform the court below in case this petitioner after his release in the present case is named or is involved in any further case of similar nature and whereupon the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bond of the petitioner and take him into custody. 2. that the petitioner would ensure his representation before the Court below on each and very date fixed in the case and the failure on the part of the petitioner to ensure his representation on two consecutive dates fixed without reasonable explanation to the satisfaction of the trial Court, would confer liberty on the Court concerned to initiate proceeding for cancellation of his bail bonds and to take him into custody. Bibhash (Jyoti Saran,J.)