- (1.) KRISHNA Kumar, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE learned counsel of the ap plicant contended that under Section 53 (A) of Narcotic Drugs, the statement of witnesses recorded by the Recovering Of ficer are admissible in evidence. It is con tended that for the said recovery, two per sons were kept to witness the recovery and the said persons were Kedar and Sanjay Kumar. THE statement of the said wit nesses, namely, Kedar, and Sanjay Kumar recorded by the Recovering Officer has been filed as Annexure CA- 3 with the counter affidavit and it was shown that the said witness stated that before the Recovering Officer, asked the accused-ap plicant Satya Narain to make search of police personnel and public witnesses which was refused by the accused. THEre after, the recovery proceedings were started and Heroin was recovered. It was not stated by the said witness that before the recovery , Satya Narain accused was given option for the recovery to be made before the Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate. If any such option would have been given the same must have been men tioned by the witness. This option is very material and gives a material right to the accused and if this option is not cor roborated by the public witness of recovery, it cannot be held that the said option was given only because it was writ ten in the recovery memo. The learned counsel of the ap plicant further contended that there was no compliance of Section 50 of N. D. P. S. Act also. It is contended that the recovery was started at 10. 00 a. m. but the F. I. R. was lodged at 4. 00 p. m. In Annexure CA-6 of the counter affidavit, the arrest is shown at 16 hours while the time if seizure is shown at 10 hours. There is no explanation of the delay of six hours. The learned counsel of the Union of India contended that there was compliance of Section 50 N. D. P. S. Act, as men tioned in the recovery memo, and, there fore, there was no relevancy of the state ment of witness Kedar and another. I am, however, not convinced with this conten tion. The learned counsel of the applicant placed reliance upon 1999 (38) A. C. C. 609 to argue that compliance of Sections 50, 52,55 and 57 of N. D. P. S. Act was necessary for conviction. The judgment delivered by this Court was also referred in support of this contention the bail was granted.
(3.) CONSIDERING the above facts and the case law, the bail application is allowed. Let applicant Satya Narain Singh involved in case crime No. NIL of 2000 under Section 8/21, N. D. P. S. Act, P. S. C. B. N. Varanasi, district Ghazipur be released on bail on his furnishing a per sonal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of C. J. M/ Court concerned. Bail granted. .;