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.
(Jyoti Saran,J.)
Bibhash