JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the first information report and the order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Karauli. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that there has been a non-compliance of the provisions of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1 985 (hereinafter referred to as the NDPS Act). He has placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in Immamuddin v. State of Rajasthan (1886 (2) R.L.R. 623) and Goverdhanlal v. State (1991 RCC 168) . The learned Public Prosecutor has admitted that there has been a non-compliance of provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. 3. In view of the above position and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant bail to the accused petitioner. 4. In the result, the bail application of the accused petitioner is allowed and it is ORDERED that the accused petitioner Vinod Kumar S/o Jagdish Prasad shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand) with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court for his appearance before that court or any other court on each and every date of beaming during the pendency of trial and as and when called upon to do so. *******