JUDGMENT 1. - The prosecution case against the petitioner is under section 8(29) of the NDPS Act on the ground that the accused-Shahjad Khan is reported to have stated before the Recovery Officer that the smak which he was selling and was recovered from him was purchased from the petitioner. The learned counsel contended that as there is no material against the petitioner except the above alleged statement of the accused and there is no prior information also the petitioner is being falsely implicated in the case. The police did not find any contraband item in the possession of the petitioner. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application contending that the statement of the accused is relevant as it has been made before arrest and it cannot be said that the petitioner is being.falsely implicated. 3. I have perused the case-diary. Having considered all the facts and circumstances of the case, it is deemed just and proper to allow the bail petition. 4. Accordingly, it is ordered that in the event of her arrest in connection with FIR No. 128/2000, P.S. Nimbahera, the accused-petitioner-Smt. Amana W/o Mohd. Ayub be released on bail provided she furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 5,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer on the following conditions : (i) that she shall make herself available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required, (ii) that she shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer, (iii) that she shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court. Bail application allowed. *******