NEERAJ KUMAR KATIYAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Daya Shankar Mishra learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, Special Public Prosecutor (Narcotics) on behalf of opposite party, the Union of India.

(2.) The bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant Neeraj Kumar Katiyar involved in Criminal Case No.226 of 2013, under Sections 8/20/23 of NDPS Act, D.R.I, District Varanasi.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated; that allegedly recovered quantity of Charas has not been recovered from the applicant; that the entire story mentioned in memo of recovery and arrest is false and concocted; that the alleged recovery of contraband from the Car is and the Car does not belong to the applicant; that there there is no independent witness of alleged recovery; that the compliance of provisions of Sections 42, 50 , 52 and 57 of NDPS Act has not been made in view of law laid down in State of Rajasthan Vs. Parmanand, 2014 AIR(SC) 1384; M. Prabhulal Vs. The Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, 2003 47 AllCriC 1151; and Dilip Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2007 AIR(SC) 369; that out of the allegedly recovered material, three samples are alleged to have been prepared which is against the prescribed procedure of preparing two samples and so the entire proceedings are wrong and illegal; that the car being driven by the applicant is alleged to have been stopped at about 12.00 in noon on 24.4.2013 and the search is alleged to have been made at a distant place, at the office at Nadesar, Varanasi; that due notice of search before Gazetted Officer was not given to the two accused separately and giving the joint notice to them is wrong and illegal; that the search of applicant and the vehicle before the Gazetted Officer who was accompanying the raiding party is wrong and illegal and ought to have been made before the nearest Magistrate; that recovery of huge quantity has been shown in order to show good work and the applicant was arrested near hotel India when after meeting his father, a railway employee at Allahabad, he was going to have Darshan of Vishwanath Baba; that the confessional statement of applicant recorded in police custody is not admissible in evidence; that the applicant is in custody since 24.4.2013 and the trial is not proceeding in accordance with law rather progress of trial is very slow; that as per provisions of Section 36 of NDPS Act the trial must be conducted before special court but no special court was constituted and so the entire proceedings of trial before additional sessions judge are liable to be quashed; that the copy of the order sheet filed by opposite party along with Supplementary Counter Affidavit, shows that the prosecution is not taking due interest in early disposal of the trial; that the applicant has no criminal history; that the applicant undertakes that he will not make misuse the liberty of bail; that the applicant is in custody since 24.4.2013.