The main legal point established in the judgment is the presumption of innocence and the importance of adhering to legal procedures, such as drawing samples in accordance with the Standing Order, in determining the guilt of the accused.

JUDGMENT :

ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.

1. These two Bail Applications have been filed for grant of regular bail in connection with NCB Crime No. 05/NCB/DDN/2020 (Special Sessions Trial No. 136 of 2021, Union of India through Narcotics Control Bureau, Dehradun vs. Ankit alias Kaka and Others), registered with NCB Sub-Zone, Dehradun for the offence under Sections 8/22/27A/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short “the Act 1985”).

2. These two Bail Applications have arisen from one crime number i.e. NCB Crime No. 05, therefore, these two Bail Applications are being considered and decided by this common order. Record of First Bail Application No. 2716 of 2021 will be leading file.

3. Heard Mr. Ankur Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for Narcotics Control Bureau/respondent no. 1.

4. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for Narcotics Control Bureau (in short “NCB”), submitted that according to the present matter, on 24.12.2020 at around 12:20 hrs, a secret information was received by Ashu Sharma, Junior Intelligence Officer of NCB that two persons, namely, Ankit alias Kaka (present applicant) alongwith motorcycle bearing No. UK16C9943 and Vipin Kumar (present applicant) alongwith motorcycle bearing No. UK07DB5409 were going to sell drug injections, Diazepam, Buprenorphine and Phenargan to a person, near Tibetten Settlement Office, Lakhanwala, Herbartpur, Dehrdaun. On the basis of the said secret information, 150 ampoules of injections (Buprenorphine - 50 Nos, Diazepam - 50 Nos. and Phenargan- 50 Nos.) were recovered from the possession of the present applicant Ankit alias Kaka and 294 ampoules of injections (Buprenorphine - 98 Nos., Diazepam - 98 Nos. and Phenargan - 98 Nos.) were recovered from the possession of Vipin Kumar, present applicant, on 24.12.2020 at near Dhogu Yugualling, Tibetan Settlement Office, Lakhanwala, Herbartpur, Dehrdaun. Consequently, notices under Section 67 of the Act, 1985, were issued to Ankit alias Kaka and Vipin Kumar. In his voluntary statements, recorded on 24.12.2020 and 25.12.2020, before Mr. Ashu Sharma, Ankit alias Kaka had confessed his guilt that the said injections were recovered from his possession. Thereafter, he was arrested on 25.12.2020 at 15:30 hrs. Statements of present applicant Vipin Kumar was recorded under Section 67 of the Act, 1985 on 24.12.2020 and 25.12.2020. In his statements, he stated that the said recovered injections were purchased by him from a person, namely, Gaurav alias Rajat Kumar (co-accused). Applicant Vipin Kumar was arrested on 25.12.2020 at 15:40 hrs. After completion of investigation, a complaint was filed on 21.06.2021 before the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Dehradun.

5. Mr. Ankur Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the applicants, submitted that the applicants are innocent persons. Seized contraband were not recovered from the possession of the applicants. The alleged recovery was planted. He further submitted that according to the complaint, the respondent no. 1 mixed up all the injections, which was allegedly recovered from the applicants and the same was sealed in three boxes, thereafter, the same was produced before the concerned Magistrate on 02.01.2021 and one ampoule of each injections were drawn for Forensic Science Laboratory. Therefore, it is not clear that which injections were recovered from the applicant Ankit alias Kaka or which injections were recovered from the applicant Vipin Kumar.

6. Mr. Ankur Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants, further submitted that the respondents had violated the provisions of Standing Order No. 1/89 dated 13.06.1989, issued under sub-section (1) of Section 52A of the Act 1985 by the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that a confessional statement, recorded under Section 67 of the Act 1985, is not admissible.

7. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate, submitted that in compliance of the