The severity of the offence, the potential use of the recovered substance in the production of Heroin, and the commercial quantity of the controlled substance were central to the court's decision.

Harsh Kumar, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for Union of India and perused the record.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated for the recovery of 32.450 litres of Acetic Anhydride in six containers; that the recovery is alleged to have been made on 2.11.2014 from the two bags of applicant which was found to be Acetic Anhydride upon testing on the spot and was allegedly admitted to be so by the applicant; that manufacture, trade, commerce, possession and consumption of the recovered commodity without unique registration number has been prohibited by way of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Regulation of Controlled Substances) Order, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "2013 Order") wherein in all the three Schedules-A, B & C the above commodity of Acetic anhydried has been mentioned at No.1 and its manufacture, distribution, sell, purchase, possession, storage, consumption as well as export and import is subject to control as specified in this 2013 Order; that no commercial quantity of above substance has been prescribed either in the N.D.P.S. Act or 2013 Order; that recovery of above narcotic substance has been falsely planted on applicant of which there is no independent witness; that Shafiq Khan, the witness of recovery has submitted an affidavit A-3 on 12.12.2014 stating that the arrest of and recovery from applicant was not made in his presence; that compliance of provisions of Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act was not made; that the applicant has not committed any offence under Section 9A/25A of N.D.P.S. Act; that the case law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Kuldeep Singh and others, 2004 (2) SCC 590, is not applicable to the facts of this case as the commodity of contraband seized therein was altogether a different commodity of contraband from the commodity which is alleged to have been recovered from the applicant; that in above case 'Acetic N hydride' while in the present case 'Acetic Anhydride' was allegedly recovered which are two different commodities; that the progress of trial is very poor as despite framing of charges against sole accused, the applicant on 30.4.2015, only one witness has been produced for examination and there is no likelihood of early disposal of 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 2.11.2014.

3. Learned counsel for Union of India, Department of Narcotics vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and contended that due compliance of provisions of N.D.P.S. Act was made at the time of recovery; that huge quantity of narcotic substance has been recovered from the applicant, which may not be falsely planted; that above liquid form of narcotic is also used in manufacturing of Heroin and the percentage of Acetic Anhydride in the samples of six containers sent for chemical examination was found to be between 94.1% to 95.5% in each of the six samples taken out from the six containers; that the recovery has been made in presence of independent witness and the applicant has admitted the commission of crime due to greed of money in his statement U/s 67 of N.D.P.S. Act which is binding on him; that allegations about submission of any affidavit by Shafiq Khan on 22.12.2014 denying recovery in his presence are false and incorrect and no such affidavit was produced before the Sessions court, who has rejected bail application of applicant on 22.1.2015; that even if the applicant has obtained any such affidavit from Shafiq Khan by exerting his influence or under threat, the same is not admissible in evidence and may not be considered for disposal of bail application; that in the case of Union of India Vs. Kuldeep Singh and others (supra) the Apex Court taking no