JUDGMENT : P.K. Misra, J. - The petitioner has filed this application for bail u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the "Code"). He has been charge-sheeted u/s 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'NDPS Act'). It is alleged that 3 Kgs. of opium puppy had been recovered from inside the house of the petitioner. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that admittedly the house in question was in occupation of other adult male members and female members, apart from the petitioner. It is further submitted that there is no material to indicate prima facie that the articles alleged to have been seized were under the exclusive possession of the petitioner. The learned counsel further submitted that in the seizure list initially it was mentioned that the articles had been seized from the bed room of Sudhakar Swain but subsequently the said name has been corrected and name of Padmanay Swain has been indicated. The learned counsel further submitted that the allegations that the room from where the seizure was effected was the bed room of the petitioner, is based only on the alleged statement of the accused in presence of the raiding party and there is no other material on record to show that in fact the said room was the bed room of the petitioner. He further submitted that the materials on record indicate that no door had been affixed to the said room and construction of door was in progress and as such the room was accessible to all. 3. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the materials on record, I do not find sufficient prima facie case to indicate that the petitioner was in exclusive conscious possession of the contraband seized articles. Though there is allegation that the petitioner was indulging in such offence previously, there is no material on record in support of such allegation. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances and the materials on record, I consider it to be a fit case where the petitioner should be released on bail. However, keeping in view the gravity of the alleged offence, it is a fit case where stringent condition should be imposed. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances and the materials on record, I consider it to be a fit case where the petitioner should be released on bail. However, keeping in view the gravity of the alleged offence, it is a fit case where stringent condition should be imposed. Accordingly, I direct that the petitioner may be released on bail on furnishing a cash security of Rs. 10, 000/- and bail bond of Rs 50,000/- with the two sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack, in G. R. Case No. 199 of 1996. Unless and otherwise directed by the trial Court, the petitioner should attend the Court on each date. Any observation made in this order should not influence, the trial Court in any manner and the case should be disposed of on its own merit on the basis of the legal evidence on record. The bail application is accordingly disposed of.