OM PRAKASH GUPTA Vs. U.O.I

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this application the applicant Om Prakash Gupta has prayed to release him on bail in Case Crime No. Nil of 2015, under section 8/20 N.D.P.S. Act, P.S. C.B.N., Ghazipur, District Ghazipur.

(2.) Heard Mr. Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for Central Bureau of Narcotic. Perused the record.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case showing a fictitious recovery of 100 Kg 500 Gms Ganja from a Fiat Liniya Car, which was being driven by the applicant, who has no concern with the Ganja and nothing was recovered from the car as stated in the recovery memo. In fact the applicant along with co-accused Vinod Kumar, who is the owner of the vehicle, was going to B.H.U., Varanasi, for medical check up of Vinod Kumar. On the way his vehicle was checked by the authorities during which some hot talks took place and the applicant was falsely implicated in this case. It is next contended that there is no independent witness of the recovery and as such there is no evidence against the applicant except his own confessional statement before the officers of Central Bureau of Narcotic, which is not admissible. Learned counsel has next contended that the applicant was in the vehicle as a driver and he was completely unaware of the fact that Ganja was kept in the vehicle. It is next contended that the prosecution story that more than 100Kg of Ganja was recovered from a secret hidden chamber constructed in the dickey of a Feat Liniya Car is wholly unreliable because such a huge quantity of an article like Ganja cannot be kept in such a small place like hidden chamber constructed inside the dickey of the car. It is next contended that the recovered article was found by the search team kept in three bags but samples of 24Gms each were taken only from two bags for sending to chemical analyst. It is next contended that the mandatory provisions of sections 42 and 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act have not been complied with. It is lastly contended that the applicant is languishing in jail since 5.12.2015. There is no likelihood of early disposal of the trial and the applicant undertakes that if released on bail, he will never misuse his liberty and will cooperate in trial.