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 Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu Challan has been filed in this case on 12.4.91. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that there has been a non-compliance of the provisions of Sections 42, 50 and 57 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the NDPS Act). He urges that the petitioner is a boy of 17 years. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in Imamuddin v. State of Raj. 1986 (2) R.L.R. 63 and Goverdhan Lal 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. In view of the above position & 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 Vijendra be released on bail provided be furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- 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 hearing during the pendency of trial and as and when called upon to do so. *******