1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CR.MISC.BAIL APPLICATION NO.4400/2010 Najamuddin Vs. State Date of order : 28/5/2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Abdul Rahim Khan for the petitioner. Shri Amit Punia, P.P. for the State. ****** Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the relevant documents placed before me. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that presently two cases are said to have been pending against the petitioner of petty nature and not under NDPS Act. In the present case, recovery of 50 gms of Smack has been shown to have been made from the petitioner. Same quantity of Smack was recovered from co-accused Ghansi Khan who has already been enlarged on bail by coordinate bench of this Court by order dated 22.4.2010 in S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Appl. No.3123/2010 despite the fact that he too had two earlier cases against him. The other co-accused Mohd. Irfan who was accused of offence u/s. 8/21 and 8/29 of NDPS Act has also been enlarged on bail by coordinate bench vide order dated 22.4.2010 in S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Appl. No.3371/2010. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. 2 Without expressing any opinion on the merits of this case but taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail. In the result, this bail application u/S.439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioner Najamuddin @ Tunda S/o Kamruddin shall be released on bail in F.I.R. No.110/2010, P.S. Kunhari, Distt. Kota for offence u/s.8/21 & 8/29 of NDPS Act on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before that court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so till conclusion of the trial. The surety bond submitted by the petitioner shall be verified by the Tehsildar of the area concerned. However, in case the petitioner is found indulged in similar offence at any point of time, the prosecution would be at liberty to apply for cancellation of his bail before the Court of Sessions itself and the bail would be liable to be cancelled on this ground alone. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/