IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.3946 of 2009 CHHOTELAL PRASAD YADAV @ CHHOTELAL YADAV son of Nandu Rout, resident of village Harpat Ganj, P.S. Sugauli,District Parsa, Nepal … … Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR … … Opp. Party For the petitioner:Shri Bishwanath Pd.Sinha, Sr. Adv. For the State: Shri Dashrath Mehta, APP ----------- 2. 30.1.2009 Heard Sri Bishwanath Prasad Sinha, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Dashrath Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The case relates to recovery of 8 K.Gs. of Ganja from the possession of the petitioner who allegedly had imported the substance across the Indo-Nepalese border somewhere in the District of West Champaran. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the provision of Section 37(1)(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act and submitted that the restriction of granting bail without complying with the conditions of that particular provision is applicable only when the accused is involved in commercial quantity of the narcotic substance or drugs 2 and if the quantity is below the commercial quantity, the restriction could not be a fetter in the jurisdiction of any court in granting bail to any of such persons. As indicated above, the recovery is of 8 K.Gs. and the petitioner is in custody since 17.2. 2007. The contention is that only charge has been framed and no witnesses has been examined. Let the above named petitioner, in the above circumstances, be released on his furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000/-( twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of 5th Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge, Motihari, East Champaran in N.D.P.S.Case No. 15 of 2007 arising out of Motihari P.S.Case No. 30 of 2007 subject to the following conditions: 1. That one of the sureties of the petitioner shall be his family member or a very close relative, 2. that both the sureties 3 shall affix their photographs on the bonds and furnish their details to the court which shall be verified and the court could get satisfied about the genuineness of their photographs and 3. that the petitioner shall be required to attend the proceedings of the court on all dates to be fixed without any let or hindrance unless sufficient ground is shown about which the court has to be satisfied on proper evidence. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)