IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.3961 of 2011 MAHESH MAHTO Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 02 18.03.2011 It is pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that in Para 1 of this application in place of under Section 22 of N.D.P.S. Act, it has wrongly been typed as under Section 27 of N.D.P.S. Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary corrections within course of the day. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Allegedly, 5 kg. Ganja were recovered from a bag, which had been kept near the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner does not have any criminal antecedent and, as a matter of fact, nothing has been recovered from his conscious possession and he has falsely been implicated in this case on mere suspicion. To fortify his contention, he submits that the seizure list does not bear the signature of the petitioner. Taking into consideration the above stated facts and circumstances as well as submissions of the parties, let the petitioner 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 learned Special Judge-cum-Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra in connection with Rail Chapra P.S. Case No. 68 of 2010 corresponding to N.D.P.S. Case No. 10 of 2010. Shahzad ( Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.)