J. K. MEHRA ( 1 ) SATISH Aggrawal has filed reply of the Department and he is assisted by two officers namely: Shri A. Pillai and Shri Sameer Sehgal, Air Custom Officers. ( 2 ) HAVE heard the parties. The petitioner was detained/arrested on 16/17th October 1994 at I. G. I. Airport and two packets contained 140 gms. of heroin and 40 gms. of opium were seized by Air Customs from the petitioner. ( 3 ) THE petitioner has approached this court for bail having failed to obtain the said relief from the Trial Court inter alia for the following reasons: ( 4 ) THAT in the case of the Piayara Singh reported as Air 1977 SC 2274 it was held by Hon ble Supreme Court that conviction could be recorded on the basis of voluntary statement which is an extra- judicial confession of the accused under Section 108 of the Customs Act. But the Court has failed to notice that on the basis of a confession retracted at the earliest opportunity, though not on the first appearance in the court a conviction cannot be sustained without further corroboration through other evidence. A reference may be made in this behalf to the case of Mahabir Das Biswas and Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal 1995 (2) CC Cases 117 (SC ). The same would be the position in the cases covered by confession of co-accused as held in the case of Sarabjit Singh @ Sodi Vs. State of Punjab reported as 1995 (2) CC Cases as 95 (HC) wherein it has been held as under: Release on bail in the absence of evidence to connect the petitioner with the offence under NDPS Act- where the petitioner has been apprehended without conducting identification parade on the statement of the co-accused and the admissibility or otherwise of the evidence of co-accused is to be decided that by the trial Court, the petitioner is released on bail in the absence of evidence to connect him with the crime. " ( 5 ) IT appears that the ratio of the judgment of this court in the case of Michael Garden Kingsbury V. Narcotics Control Bureau and Ms. Helen Anne Cooper V. Narcotics Control Bureau reported as (54) 1994 DLT 685 , has also been ignored by the Trial Court. " ( 5 ) IT appears that the ratio of the judgment of this court in the case of Michael Garden Kingsbury V. Narcotics Control Bureau and Ms. Helen Anne Cooper V. Narcotics Control Bureau reported as (54) 1994 DLT 685 , has also been ignored by the Trial Court. ( 6 ) IT is now settled law that the non compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the N. D. P. S. Act would vitiate the trial. Consequently in my opinion any material which is brought on record of a case where there is no such non compliance of Section 50 can be of non avail in upholding conviction because no conviction can be sustained as a result of a trial which stands vitiated as a consequence of non compliance with the mandatory provisions such as with those of Section 50 of the N. D. P. S. Act. ( 7 ) IT is submitted on behalf of the applicant that he was forced and coerced to give statement under Section 108 of the custom Act and 67 of the N. D. P. S. Act which was retracted before the Court at which was retracted before the Court at the earliest available opportunity. Even though it is for the trial court to go into the question ad to whether such statement was voluntary and the effect of such retraction. The Court has to be very cautious in making use of such retracted confessions in the absence of any other independent evidence which would corroborated the facts stated in such confession. This could be considered at the appropriate stage in the trial by the Trial Court. ( 8 ) ANOTHER factor which could be examined at the time of framing of the charge by the Trial Court is that if there is no doubt in the violation or non compliance with the provision of Section 50 of N. D. P. S. Act would it serve at any purpose to allow the trial to go on and would it not entitled the accused to be discharged at that stage itself. Thus saving public money and the time of the court in conducting the trial which is initiated for non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the N. D. P. S. Act. This however would not be so if the fact of non compliance cannot be decided without evidence. Thus saving public money and the time of the court in conducting the trial which is initiated for non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the N. D. P. S. Act. This however would not be so if the fact of non compliance cannot be decided without evidence. It will be appropriate for the State authorities also to consider in the case of foreign nationals to depot such individuals who escape the consequence of their activities on the technical pleas of non compliance with certain mandatory provision of law. ( 9 ) ANOTHER consideration which appear to have weighed heavily with the trial Court is that a large number of foreign nationals who were enlarged on bail in the last little over one year have jumped the bail; This would of course be a valid consideration for the Court to proceed more cautiously while allowing bail in the cases where the accused to bail. But it cannot be said that the conduct of some foreign nationals would given rise to any presumption against all foreign nationals of the nature that they if released on bail. If anything in my opinion is called for it is stringent - conditions to be imposed while releasing any foreign national on bail. In the case of the person who have so far jumped the bail. I am sure the authorities concerned are taking appropriate proceedings. ( 10 ) KEEPING in view all that facts and circumstance of the case including retraction of the confession and apparent non compliance with mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the N. D. P. S. Act and the fact that the petitioner has been in custody for well over one year. it would be in the interest of justice that the petitioner be enlarged on bail. Accordingly I order that the petitioner should be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2. 00 lacs with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court subjected to the further conditions that after his release the petitioner shall report to the trial court on every working day, and on every Court holiday he shall be reporting to the Duty Magistrate, New Delhi. The passport of the petitioner shall remain deposited with the Department of Custom/court concerned. The passport of the petitioner shall remain deposited with the Department of Custom/court concerned. The petitioner shall not travel beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the said court. The petitioner before being released on bail shall furnish his local address where the petitioner is going to stay and in the event of any change in address the same shall be communicated to the Trial Court within 24 hours of such change of address. A copy of this order be sent to the Embassy of Germany so that no duplicate passport is issued to the petitioner by the said Embassy. ( 11 ) IN case the petitioner fails to furnish surety, it will be open to the petitioner to move appropriate application under Section 445 Cr. P. C. before the Trial Court ,who will try the same on its own merits. ( 12 ) THE petition stands disposed of in the above terms.