RAVINDRA SINGH, J. Heard Sri V. P. Srivastava and J. S. Kashyap, learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. 2. This application has been filed with a prayer that the applicant may be released on bail in case Crime No. 9 of 2005, under Section 17/18 N. D. P. S. Act, police station Vijai Nagar, District Ghaziabad. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 5-1-2005 the first informant SI Mr. Shatrughan Upadhyay along with some police personnel were in search of some wanted accused persons in city area of the Ghaziabad. When they reached near the petrol pump, the Sub-Inspector Mr. Narendra Sharma, who was in petrolling duty met them. At that time, the applicant and two other miscreants, who were coming from A. B. E. S. School, stopped and by turning back walked towards the petrol pump. They were asked to stop under suspicion but they did not stop there, then they were arrested by the police party after using necessary force at 3. 30 p. m. Before taking the search, the applicant and other co-accused persons disclosed that they were having heroin then they were asked by the first informant to give personal search before any Magistrate or Gazetted Police Officer, but they have denied the same by orally and given in writing. Thereafter the applicant and other co-accused persons disclosed their names and addresses. When applicant was searched, from his possession 350 gms. heroin was recovered and from the possession of co-accused Ashish 50 gms. heroin was recovered and from possession of co- accused Rgeb 100 gms. heroin was recovered. They disclosed that they have brought the abovementioned heroins from one Satyendra Singh. The recovered heroin was sealed by the police and sample taken by the police was also sealed. The recovery memo was prepared which was read over by the accused persons. The alleged occurrence had taken place near the petrol pump, so public witnesses could not be collected to sign the recovery memo. Thereafter the applicant and two other co-accused persons were brought to the police station where an F. I. R. was registered on 5-1-2005 at 5. 10 p. m. The distance of the police station from the alleged place of occurrence was about 3 kms. Thereafter the applicant and two other co-accused persons were brought to the police station where an F. I. R. was registered on 5-1-2005 at 5. 10 p. m. The distance of the police station from the alleged place of occurrence was about 3 kms. The applicant applied for bail before the learned Special Judge, N. D. P. S. Act, Ghaziabad but same was rejected on 1-2- 2005. Thereafter, the applicant has preferred this application for bail. 4. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the applicant was not arrested as alleged by the prosecution. The alleged recovery was planted from him because the applicant was coming from his house by a Bus to Ghaziabad to attend a function of marriage. Some police personnels were also sitting in the same Bus, over the sitting on the seat some not exchange between the police personnels and applicant had taken place on 5-1-2005 at 12. 05 p. m. Due to this reason, the applicant had been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant is a private student of M. A. IInd year, he has completed the course of N. C. C. There is no compliance of Section 50 of the N. D. P. S. Act. The police personnels did not make a search or themselves before taking the search of the applicant and other co- accused persons. The applicant is in jail since 5-1-2005. He is a young man aged about 26 years and he is not a previous convict and no other criminal case is pending against him. There is no public witness to support the prosecution story. 5. The abovementioned contention is opposed by learned Addl. Government Advocate by submitting that the applicant and other co-accused persons were arrested on 5-1-2005 at 3. 30 p. m. near a petrol pump. The alleged occurrence was all of sudden and there is a compliance of Section 50 of N. D. P. S. Act. From the possession of the applicant 350 gms. of heroin was recovered and from the possession of other co-accused person Ragiv 100 gms. of heroin and from possession of co-accused Ashish 50 gms. of heroin was recovered. The alleged occurrence had taken place all of sudden, so no public witnesses could be collected to sign the recovery memo and the appellant has failed to establish his defence. of heroin was recovered and from the possession of other co-accused person Ragiv 100 gms. of heroin and from possession of co-accused Ashish 50 gms. of heroin was recovered. The alleged occurrence had taken place all of sudden, so no public witnesses could be collected to sign the recovery memo and the appellant has failed to establish his defence. The recovered material was sent for the chemical examination. The report of the chemical examiner has been received in which it was found that the recovered material was heroin, so the applicant is not entitled for bail. 6. After hearing Counsel for the applicant and learned Addl. Government Advocate and from the perusal of the record, it appears that the applicant was arrested on 5-1-2005 at 3. 30 p. m. near the petrol pump on bye-pass road Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad. The applicant and co-accused disclosed that they were having heroin, thereafter they were asked by the first informant to give a search before any Magistrate or Gazetted Officer but they have denied the same orally and in giving in writing. Thereafter, their search was made and from the possession of the applicant 350 gms. of heroin was recovered which is above the commercial quantity. The prosecution has made the compliance of Section 50 of the N. D. P. S. Act and the applicant has failed to establish his defence at this stage. From the perusal of the recovery memo, it appears that there was no public witness to support the prosecution story all the witnesses are police personnels. The contention of the Counsel for the applicant is that in absence of any public witness, the testimony of police personnels alone should not be held sufficient for conviction of the applicant. This contention has no substance because the testimony of the police personnel should be treated in the same manner as testimony of any other public witness and there is no principle of law that without corroboration of any independent witness no reliance can be placed on their testimony, the presumption is that a person acts honestly and it applies as much in favour of police personnel as of other persons. It is not proper judicial approach to dis-trust and suspect them without any good ground. It is not proper judicial approach to dis-trust and suspect them without any good ground. At the time of the trial, when the witnesses will be examined, their testimony will be considered with proper care and caution because the police personnel has arrested the applicant and the search was made by them and the recovery of 350 gms. of heroin has been shown from the possession of the applicant. The alleged occurrence had taken place all of sudden. The plea of the defence that the police personnel has not taken the search of himself before taking the search of the applicant will be seen at the time of the trial. In the present case, the recovery of 350 gms. heroin has been shown from the possession of the applicant. The recovered quantity of the heroin is too much which rules out the false implication of the applicant. The F. I. R. was promptly lodged and there was no enmity of the applicant with the first informant and other police personnels. In such circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the applicant does not deserve to be released on bail. The observation made above shall not affect the trial of the applicant. 7. Accordingly, this application is rejected. Bail application rejected. .