MANISH KUMAR VARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for bail. The applicant is in custody in criminal case No. 257 of 1994 under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the NDPS Act). The bail application has been pressed on the ground that his remand to jail custody by the trial court was not in accordance with law and, as such the whole detention has vitiated. It is also contended that no narcotic drug or psychotropic substance was recovered from him and he was falsely implicated. It was contended that the required provisions of the Act were not followed under the alleged arrest, and seizure and search and the subsequent steps by the authorities, and the provisions being mandatory, the violation thereof would entitle him to acquittal after trial and as such he was entitled to bail at this stage.

(2.) The case against him as levelled according to the First Information Report, is that on 13-1-95 at about 2 p.m. the intelligence officers arrested the applicant near the door of Chandra Bali Maurya in village Kukurmutta, Police Station Marhhuadih, District Varanasi, and 590 gms. of heroine powder was recovered from his possession. The applicant allegedly confessed his. guilt before the authorities and further confessed that he was engaged in the drug trade.

(3.) In the bail application it was contended that the story of arrest was a got up one. It was also contended that the alleged seizure list was not produced before any court before filing of the complaint. Nor any copy thereof was made over to the applicant. The bail application averred that the concerned authorities did not prepare any sample seal as required under the law, and the materials seized or any sample thereof was not produced before any court. No sample of the seal was sent to the Forensic Sciences Laboratory. The confession, if any, was obtained under coercion by the concerned authorities. It was submitted that the applicant was not given the choice to get himself searched before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate, as provided under the law. According to the applicant, provisions of the Code of Criminal procedure concerning searchand seizure were also not followed. And there was no proper remand order for his detention in custody.