Bala Krishna Narayana, J. The appellant, Abrar Ahmad who has been convicted for offences under Section 21 read with Section 29 of N. D. P. S. Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 12 years with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (One lac) and in default of payment of fine further three years' rigorous imprisonment by the judgement and order dated 27.5.2007 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 14, Varanasi is seeking enlargement on bail during the pendency of the appeal. The prayer for bail made by the appellants Ayub and Abdul Mahbood in the connected Criminal Appeal Nos. 4115 and 4116 of 2006 which arise out of the same judgement as the present appeal is also being considered simultaneously. 2. Heard Sri D. S. Misra and Sri A. P. Misra, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri I. P. Singh and Sanjay Kumar Singh for the Central Bureau of Narcotics and the Union of India and perused the impugned judgement as well as the record of the Criminal Case No. 162 of 1996. Eschewing the necessary details the facts necessary for consideration of the prayer for bail are catapulted hereinbelow: 3. From the perusal of the record it transpires that on 29.12.1995 the truck bearing the registration number U. P. 78-B-7554 (hereinafter referred to as 'the truck' in question) was intercepted and checked by the members of the Central Bureau of Narcotics on 29.12.1995 at about 8.00 P. M. on prior information that the truck in question was transporting illicit contraband substance. Out of four persons who were travelling in the truck in question, three persons made their escape good in the cover of darkness. The three persons who had escaped from the truck were recognized in the torch light by the members of the Central Bureau of Narcotics as Hafiz Afzal, Taiiab and Aqueel alias Manne alias Mannu. The only person who could not escape and who was caught upon being enquired disclosed his name as Abrar Ahmad, the appellant. Upon further interrogation he divulged the names of the driver of the truck and two other persons who had escaped from the Truck as Aqueel alias Manne, Hafiz Afzal and Taiiab. The only person who could not escape and who was caught upon being enquired disclosed his name as Abrar Ahmad, the appellant. Upon further interrogation he divulged the names of the driver of the truck and two other persons who had escaped from the Truck as Aqueel alias Manne, Hafiz Afzal and Taiiab. The appellant, Abrar Ahmad was given the option of being searched in the presence of a Gazetted officer or a Magistrate, which he declined and requested that he be searched by members of Central Bureau of Narcotics. The personal search of the appellant did not yield any recovery. For the purpose of searching the truck two independent witnesses were called upon. A thorough search of the truck in question lead to recovery of three cartons containing eleven packets and two cartons containing eleven packets each on which Krishi Vibhag Beej Prakshep Anna Vibhag, Uttar Pradesh was inscribed. A small quantity of substance was drawn from each of packets and upon being tested by the testing kit, the substance was found to be Heroin. The five cartons containing fifty three packets each weighing about one kg. were separately marked as A, B, C, D and E and the packets contained therein were marked according to the numbers of packets which they contained as A-1 to A-11, B-1 to B-11, C-1 to C-10, D-1 to D-11 and E-1 to E-10. The gross weight of the recovered Heroin upon being measured by a weighing scale was found to be 53 kg. The Heroin contained in different packets of each carton was mixed by opening the packets. Two samples of five gms. each were taken from mixture and sealed and kept in a tin box which was wrapped in a white cloth which was also sealed. Thereafter the recovery memo was prepared. The remaining contraband substance was restored back in the packets and kept in the cartons and each of the cartons was wrapped by a white paper and sealed. Signatures of accused, witnesses and the officers were obtained on all the sealed articles. The recovery memo of the recovered Heroin prepared and read out to the witnesses, accused and the officers. Thereafter they put their signatures thereon also. A copy of the recovery memo was given to the appellant, Abrar Ahmad and the Superintendent of Central Bureau of Narcotics, Madan Lal Mina prepared the specimen seal on the spot. The recovery memo of the recovered Heroin prepared and read out to the witnesses, accused and the officers. Thereafter they put their signatures thereon also. A copy of the recovery memo was given to the appellant, Abrar Ahmad and the Superintendent of Central Bureau of Narcotics, Madan Lal Mina prepared the specimen seal on the spot. He also prepared a separate seizure memo of the truck and other articles and Abrar Ahmad had put his signature thereon. After completion of the seizure proceedings, the statement of the appellant, Abrar Ahmad was recorded by Madan Lal Meena Superintendent, Central Bureau of Narcotics on 30.12.1995 which is on record as Ext. 4. In his statement the appellant, Abrar Ahmad is alleged to have admitted the recovery of illicit Heroin from the truck and also admitted the presence of other three suspects on the spot. The appellant, Abrar Ahmad was produced before the remand Magistrate, Vth Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi on 31.12.1995 for remand and was sent for jail. The recovered articles were handed over to the custody of Sri Gupteshwar Singh of Central Bureau of Narcotics, Varanasi. 4. Five of the ten samples taken from twenty recovered Heroin substance were sent for chemical analysis on 1.1.1996 along with a letter to the Government Heroin Factory Neemach, Madhya Pradesh. A detailed report of seizure and arrest prepared under Section 57 of the Act was forwarded to the Deputy Narcotics Commissioner, Central Bureau of Narcotics, Lucknow Camp Ghazipur on 30.12.1995. The report of chemical analyst dated 19.1.1996 indicated the presence of dicital morphine in the samples. By an order dated 3.1.1996 the complainant, Ram Avtar, Assistant Narcotics Commissioner, Central Narcotics Bureau, Lucknow was appointed as Investigating Officer who after completing the investigation filed a complaint before the VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Varanasi against fifteen persons on 27.3.1996. The said complaint was registered as Criminal Case No. 162 of 1995. Only five accused namely, Abrar Ahmad, Abdul Mabood, Ayub, Altaf and Kuddus were tried in Criminal Case No. 162 of 1995 for the offences with which they were charged and the trial of the other accused persons was separated for various reasons. The statement of Abrar Ahmad recorded on 30.12.1996 was made the basis of the complaint whereafter the appellant, Abrar Ahmad was formally arrested on 31.12.1999 and informed of the charges. The statement of Abrar Ahmad recorded on 30.12.1996 was made the basis of the complaint whereafter the appellant, Abrar Ahmad was formally arrested on 31.12.1999 and informed of the charges. In compliance of the order dated 4.1.1996 passed by the Incharge, Sessions Judge, Varanasi the appellant, Abrar Ahmad was kept in departmental custody and on 7.1.1996 his second statement was recorded by Investigating Officer, R. A. Rai which is on record as Ext. Ka-22 in which he reiterated the facts which he had stated in his statement recorded on 30.12.1995 and disclosed the names of the accused who had managed to escape from the spot as Hafiz Afzal, Taiiyab and driver Aqueel alias Manne alias Mannu. In his statement Abrar Ahmad further stated that he was the Khalasi of the truck in question which had been pressed into service for transporting 53 kgs. of Heroin to Calcutta. The appellant in his statement also elicited that Kuddus, Fahim, Moin Uddin, Javed, Hazi Anwar, Hafiz Afzal, Tayyab Zuber, Aqueel and Nazeem were actively involved in illegal trafficking of narcotics drugs which is completely prohibited and is an offence under the Act. Record further shows that the statement of co-accused Mohd. Maboob was recorded on 9.1.1996 in which he admitted is complicity as participant in illegal trafficking of prohibited narcotic drugs and also admitted the involvement of Hafiz Afzal, Tayyab, Kuddus and Zuber, Moinuddin, Zaved, Hazi Anwar, Fahim and Zumai in the said illicit business of illegal drug trafficking. Abdul Mabood's statement under Section 67 of the N. D. P. S. Act in which he admitted his involvement in the illicit drug trafficking with other co-accused was recorded on 9.1.1996 is on record as Ext. Ka-23 5. Accused Ayub in his statement (Ext. Ka-24) recorded under Section 67 of N. D. P. S. Act on 12.1.1996 admitted that he had attempted to transport Heroin illegally by concealing the same in the cabinet of the truck in question and he was extending cooperation in the business of illicit drug trafficking and was part of the criminal conspiracy under which 53 Kg. Heroin was planned to be illegally transported to Calcutta. Altaf Hussain alias zumai in his statement recorded under Section 67 of N. D. P. S. Act on 17.1.1996 (Ext. Ka 26) by the Investigating Officer admitted his involvement in the illicit business of illegal trafficking of prohibited narcotic drug along with other co-accused. Heroin was planned to be illegally transported to Calcutta. Altaf Hussain alias zumai in his statement recorded under Section 67 of N. D. P. S. Act on 17.1.1996 (Ext. Ka 26) by the Investigating Officer admitted his involvement in the illicit business of illegal trafficking of prohibited narcotic drug along with other co-accused. Abdul Mabood also in his statement recorded under Section 67 of the N. D. P. S. Act on 12.1.1996, which is on record as Ext. Ka-3 admitted his complicity in the illegal trafficking of contraband drugs along with other co-accused. Similarly the statement of Quddus recorded under Section 67 of N. D. P. S. Act on 11.4.1997 is on record as Ext. Ka-33. Charge under Section 8/21/29 of the N. D. P. S. Act was framed against the appellants, Abrar Ahmad and Ayub. Accused Abdul Mabood was charged under Sections 8/21/25 and 21/29 of N. D. P. S. Act. Charge under Section 8/21 and 21/29 of N. D. P. S. Act was framed against accused Altaf Hussain alias Zumani. Accused Quddus was charged under Sections 21, 27 and 27 of the N. D. P. S. Act. All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. For proving the charges, made against the accused the prosecution examined Madan Lal Mina, Superintendent P. W. 1, Deputy Inspector Ram Dhari Singh P. W. 2, Panna Lal Mehra as P. W. 3, Jeevach Thakur P. W. 4, Gupteshwar Singh P. W. 5, Gopal Singh P. W. 6 and D. P. Srivastava P. W. 7. From the side the prosecution 33 papers were filed as documentary evidence which were marked as Ext. Ka-1 to Ext. Ka-33. The appellant Abrar Ahmad in his examination under Section 313 Cr. P. C. denied having been arrested on the spot along with the truck in question and seized contraband articles. He also denied that he had identified the three persons who were travelling in the truck and who had allegedly escaped. He also denied his presence on the spot and stated that he was arrested from his house on 28.12.1995. He further stated that after he was arrested, his signatures were obtained on several blank papers. The other appellants, Abdul Mabood and Ayub also denied the incriminating circumstances and material against them and pleaded false implication. He also denied his presence on the spot and stated that he was arrested from his house on 28.12.1995. He further stated that after he was arrested, his signatures were obtained on several blank papers. The other appellants, Abdul Mabood and Ayub also denied the incriminating circumstances and material against them and pleaded false implication. The Court below after considering the entire evidence on record by his judgement dated 19.7.2006 convicted the appellants for the offences with which they were charged. Sri D. S. Misra, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove by any legally admissible evidence that the appellant Abrar Ahmad was arrested from the place and in the manner as alleged in the recovery memo and the complaint and 53 Kgs. of contraband substance was recovered from the truck in question. He further contended that the only evidence on which the appellants Abrar Ahmad, Ayub and Abdul Mabood have been convicted, are their confessional statements which were recorded before the officers of Central Bureau of Narcotics while they were under detention although not formally arrested, and the said confessional statements of the appellants are wholly inadmissible for the purpose of their conviction on account of being hit by Sections 25 to 27 of Indian Evidence Act. In support of his aforementioned contention Sri D. S. Misra placed reliance upon [2001 (2) EFR 222]; Sasi and another Versus State of Kerala, [2008 (2) EFR 707) SC; Noor Aga Versus State of Punjab and another and [UPCr.R 2010 (1)]; Raju Premji Versus Customs Ner Shillong Unit. He further contended that apart from confessional statements of the appellants, the only evidence left on record for proving the prosecution case, was the highly interested testimony of the officers and guards of Central Bureau of Narcotics which could not be safely relied upon. 7. Sri Misra further contended that the seized contraband articles were disposed of by the prosecution without there being any order of the Court where the complaint had been filed. 7. Sri Misra further contended that the seized contraband articles were disposed of by the prosecution without there being any order of the Court where the complaint had been filed. He next contended that after the complaint had been filed and the cognizance of the offence by the Additional Sessions Judge was taken, the Magistrate ceased to have any power to pass any order for disposal of the seized contraband articles and disposal of the seized contraband article pursuant to the order passed by the Magistrate on the application of the prosecution filed after the cognizance had been taken by the Sessions Judge resulted in illegal disposal of the recovered contraband article which vitiated the trial as there was no legally admissible evidence on record linking the samples drawn with the alleged contraband articles recovered from the truck in question. In support of his aforesaid contention he relied upon (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 541, (2009) 12 SCC 161 ; Union of India Versus Bal Mukund and others and U. P. Cr. R. 2010 (1) 110; Raju Premji Versus Customs Ner Shillong Unit. Sri Misra further submitted that the appellant Abrar Ahmad is in jail for the last fourteen years and ten months and since there is no likelihood of this appeal being heard in near future, the appellants are entitled to be enlarged on bail on this ground alone. In support of his contention he relied upon the judgements (2004) 13 SCC 42 ; Man Singh Versus Union of India, [2007 (1) EFR 253]; Daler Singh Versus State of Punjab, (2004) 13 SCC 526 ; Kamal Versus State of Haryana and [2001 (1) EFR 538]; Mohammed Islam alias Farooq Versus The Union of India. Prayer for bail was pressed at the behest of Ayub and Abdul Mabood who are also in jail for more than four years on the aforesaid ground. He also contended that in the instant case although it is alleged that 53 kg. Heroin was seized but the samples were not drawn in accordance with the standing instructions 1/88 which provide the procedure for taking adequate quantity as samples. This requirement of law having not been adhered to by the prosecution as admittedly ten samples of five grams each were taken from a total quantity of 53 kg. of Heroin, the trial stands totally vitiated. This requirement of law having not been adhered to by the prosecution as admittedly ten samples of five grams each were taken from a total quantity of 53 kg. of Heroin, the trial stands totally vitiated. Reliance has once again been placed by Sri Misra on the case of Bal Mukund (supra). Sri Misra lastly contended that the sentence awarded to Abrar Ahmad who even according to the prosecution version itself was travelling in the truck in question as Khalasi and was not the owner of the recovered contraband articles as also to the appellants Ayub and Abdul Mabood who were neither arrested on the spot nor recovery of any contraband articles were made from them is shockingly disproportionate and arbitrary. He also stated that the appellants have no criminal antecedents to their credit and since there is no legally admissible evidence on record which may reflect that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the appellants are guilty of the offence for which they have been convicted and there is likelihood of their committing any offence if they are enlarged on bail, the appellants are entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the appeal Opposing the prayer for bail and justifying the conviction of the appellants as well as the sentence awarded to them and urging that the impugned judgement does not suffer from any illegality, perversity or infirmity, Sri I. P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for Central Bureau of Narcotics submitted that after the insertion of Section 32-A in the N. D. P. S. Act, 1985 by Section 10 by Act No. 2 of 1989 no sentence awarded under the Act other than Section 27 can be suspended, remitted or commuted subject to the provisions of Section 33 which exempts a person convicted of an offence under N. D. P. S. Act who is under 18 years of age or that the offence for which such person is convicted is punishable under Section 26 or 27 of the Act from the application of Section 32-A. 8. Sri I. P. Singh next contended that since in the present case the quantity of the recovered contraband substance is much greater than the commercial quantity, and the recovery and arrest has been proved not only by officers of Central Bureau of Narcotics but also one public witness Gopal Singh the parameters of Section 37A of the Act will have to be considered before the appellants who have been convicted for the offences under the Act can be enlarged on bail and since learned counsel for the appellant has miserably failed to bring the appellant's case for bail within the parameters of Section 37 (i) (b) of the Act, the prayer for bail is liable to be turned down. In support of his contention he relied upon (2009) 1 SCC 482 ; Ratan Kumar Vishwas Versus State of U. P. and another and (2008) 6 SCC 721 ; N. R. Mon Versus Mohd. Nasimuddin. Sri Singh also submitted that the officers of the Central Bureau of Narcotics are not police officers and the statements recorded before them under Section 67 of the Act are fully admissible as evidence and not hit by Sections 25 to 27 of Evidence Act and can be made the basis of conviction. In support of his argument he relied upon (1990) 2 SCC 409 ; Raj Kumar Karwal Versus Union of India and others which was decided with Kirpal Mohan Virmani Versus State and another. He further submitted that the conviction of the appellants Abrar Ahmad, Ayub and Abdul Mabood on the basis of their confessional statements recorded before the officers of the Central Bureau of Narcotics which the appellants have admittedly not retracted despite having several opportunities and there being nothing on record to suggest that the appellants were compelled to confess under any threat or duress during their examination under Section 67 of N. D. P. S. Act, their conviction on the basis of their confessional statements was fully justified. The retraction of the confessional statement by the appellants at the stage of their examination under Section 313 Cr. P. C. is of no help and is totally irrelevant. The retraction of the confessional statement by the appellants at the stage of their examination under Section 313 Cr. P. C. is of no help and is totally irrelevant. In this regard he has placed reliance upon a decision reported in 2008 (8) SCC 313 ; Union of India Versus Samoora; (2008) 4 SCC page 668; Kanhaiya Lal Versus Union of India Sri Sanjai Singh, learned counsel for the Union of India advanced identical arguments and opposed the prayer for bail. Relying upon AIR 1970 SC 940 Ramesh Chandra Versus State of West Bengal, 1988 ALJ 411 Mahesh Versus Union of India and another; 1989 Cr. L. J. 2007(Calcutta High Court) Abdul Razzak alias Raju Versus Sudip Kr. Dutta Gupta, 1990 (27) A. C. C. (SC) page 443; Raj Kumar Agarwal Versus Union of India and another, 2003 (47) ACC 1151; M. Prabhu Lal Versus The Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Kanhiya Lal (supra) 2004 Crl. L. J. 4183; Union of India Versus Munna and another, 2008 (1) JIC 230 (SC); Union of India Versus Satrohan he vehemently urged that the officers of Central Economic Intelligence Bureau, Narcotics Central Bureau, Department of Narcotics, Central Excise and Revenue Intelligence vested by Central Government with powers under Sections-36A, 42 and 53 of the N. D. P. S. Act, are not police officers within the contemplation of Cr. P. C. and the statements recorded by such officers under Section 67 of the N. D. P. S. Act are not hit by the provisions of Sections 25 to 27 of Indian Evidence Act. Advancing his arguments further in this regard, he submitted that the statements of the appellants which were recorded before the officers of the Central Bureau of Narcotics who are not police officers within the meaning of Cr. P. C. were not hit by Sections 25 to 27 of Indian Evidence Act and the appellants' conviction on the basis of their confessional statements and other evidences on record was fully justified. 9. P. C. were not hit by Sections 25 to 27 of Indian Evidence Act and the appellants' conviction on the basis of their confessional statements and other evidences on record was fully justified. 9. Sri Sanjay Singh next contended that the law on the issue whether the delay in disposal of the appeal in itself can be a legitimate ground for enlarging the convicted appellants on bail during the pendency of the appeal is no longer resintigra and has been set at rest by the Apex Court in its judgement delivered on 23.1.2009 in Criminal Appeal No. 137 of 2009; Union of India Versus Rattan Mallik alias Habul wherein the Apex Court held that no likelihood of hearing of an appeal preferred by a person against the judgement of conviction in near future is not relevant for grant of bail in the matters arising out of conviction under the N. D. P. S. Act and a convict cannot be released on bail unless and until mandatory requirements stipulated under Section 37 (1) (b) of the Act are satisfied. Sri Sanjay Singh also submitted that there is no bar under the N. D. P. S. Act that once cognizance has been taken by a Special Judge for an offence under the N. D. P. S. Act the Magistrate ceases to have any jurisdiction to pass an order under Section 52 A for disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and thus it cannot be said that the disposal of the seized contraband articles by the prosecution pursuant to the order of the Magistrate passed under Section 52 A (3) of the Act was in violation of any provision of the Act. Repelling the aforementioned submissions of Sri I. P. Singh and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel appearing for Central Bureau of Narcotics and Union of India, Sri D. S. Misra relying upon Dadu alias Tulsidas (supra) submitted that Section 32 A of N. D. P. S. Act was held to be unconstitutional by the Apex Court to the extent it took away the right of the High Court to suspend the sentence of a person convicted under the N. D. P. S. Act and thus intermeddles with the right of appeal in such a way as to actually taking away the right of the executive to suspend, remit and commute the sentence under the Act. He further contended that the Section 37 (1) (b) must be construed in a pragmatic manner and it cannot be construed in such a way so as to negate the right of a party to obtain bail which is otherwise a valuable right for all practical purposes. In this regard, he has relied upon 2007 (1) EFR 98; State of Uttaranchal Versus Rajesh Kumar Gupta, 2006 (2) EFR 15; Man Singh Versus Union of India, 2001 (1) EFR 538 ; Mohammed Islam alias Farooq Versus Union of India, 2007 (1) EFR 253; Daler Singh Versus State of Punjab, 2007 (2) EFR 275; Salim Versus State of Punjab, 2004 (13) SCC 526 ; Kamal Versus State of Haryana. Sri Misra relying upon 2008 (1) EFR 164; Sunder Lal Versus Central Bureau of Narcotics, Neemuch (M.P.High Court), 2008 (1) EFR 172; Wassan Singh and another Versus State of Punjab. Sri Misra further contended that the report of the chemical analyst indicates different morphin percentage in the five samples which shows that the samples were not taken from the mixture of the entire seized articles which was prepared after mixing the entire seized contraband articles as alleged by the prosecution and which further proves that the original samples were either tampered with or the same were not sent for chemical analysis. He also tried to show that there was a discrepancy in the gross weight of the quantity of contraband articles recovered as mentioned in the recovery memo and as mentioned by the prosecution witnesses. 10. I have very carefully examined the submissions made by counsel for the parties and perused the lower court record as well as the impugned judgement. From the catena of the decisions cited on behalf of the parties one indisputed legal principal which emerges is that while considering a prayer for bail in an appeal against the judgement convicting a person under the provisions of N. D. P. S. Act where the quantity of recovered contraband articles is commercial quantity, the Court has to consider whether the parameters provided under Section 37 (1) (b) of the Act are satisfied or not. In the present case, it is undisputed that the quantity of the Heroin recovered was 53 kg which is much greater than the commercial quantity i. e. 250 gms. In the present case, it is undisputed that the quantity of the Heroin recovered was 53 kg which is much greater than the commercial quantity i. e. 250 gms. The submission of Sri I. B. Singh that after the insertion of Section 32A of the N. D. P. S. Act no sentence awarded under the N. D. P. S. Act can be remitted, suspended or commuted has no merit and is rejected outrightly. I now proceed to examine whether in the present case the parameters of Section 37 of the N. D. P. S. Act are satisfied or not and for his purpose it will be useful to extract Section 37 of the N. D. P. S. Act which reads as hereunder:- 37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable___(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 Of 1974)___ (a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable; (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for [offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity] shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless__ (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force, on granting of bail. From the evidence on record it appears that the appellant, Abrar Ahmad was arrested on the spot sitting in the truck by which contraband articles were being transported. He admitted that he was travelling in the truck as Khalasi with full knowledge that 53 Kg. of Heroin was being transported by the said truck for illegal sale against the provisions of N. D. P. S. Act. His first statement was recorded on 30.12.1995 by Madan Lal Meena, Superintendent, Central Bureau of Narcotics. He admitted that he was travelling in the truck as Khalasi with full knowledge that 53 Kg. of Heroin was being transported by the said truck for illegal sale against the provisions of N. D. P. S. Act. His first statement was recorded on 30.12.1995 by Madan Lal Meena, Superintendent, Central Bureau of Narcotics. Then after remand in his second statement which was recorded before the officers of the Central Bureau of Narcotics on 7.1.1996 he reiterated the stand taken by him in his statement recorded on 30.12.1995 before he was formally arrested and arrayed as accused. The appellants Ayub and Abdul Mabood also admitted their involvement in the business of illicit drug trafficking. The appellants did not retract their confessions despite getting several opportunities and it was for the first time in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. they alleged false implication. There is also no dearth of decisions of this Court as well as those of the Apex Court which have been referred to hereinabove laying down the legal proposition of law that the officers of Narcotics Department are not police officers within the contemplation of Cr. P. C. and the statements or confessions recorded by or before them will not be hit by Sections 25 to 27 of Indian Evidence Act and the conviction based thereon shall not be vitiated on that ground alone. The submission made by Sri Misra that the appellant, Abrar Ahmad shall serve his entire sentence by November, 2010 and other appellants who are also in jail for more than four years and since there is no likelihood of these appeals being heard in near future, the appellants are entitled to be released on bail, also has no merit. 11. The cases relied upon by Sri Misra in support of his aforementioned contention are clearly distinguishable on facts. In the case of Kamal (supra) the appellant was convicted for an offence under Section 304 B I. P. C. In the case of Man Singh (supra) the appellant was released on bail by the Apex Court upon his offering to deposit the fine of Rs. 1,00000/- after he had undergone more than seven years imprisonment upon his conviction under Section 8/18 and 8/15 of N. D. P. S. Act and sentenced to undergo 10 years' R. I. and fine of Rs. 1,00000/-. 1,00000/- after he had undergone more than seven years imprisonment upon his conviction under Section 8/18 and 8/15 of N. D. P. S. Act and sentenced to undergo 10 years' R. I. and fine of Rs. 1,00000/-. In the present case no such offer has come on behalf of the appellants. The apex Court in the case of U. O. I. Versus Rattan Mallik alias Habul (supra) has clearly laid down that the delay in disposal of the appeal may be a ground for bail in an appeal against the conviction for the offence punishable under the provisions of I. P. C. but the same cannot by itself be a ground for enlarging a person on bail in an appeal filed against the conviction under the provisions of N. D. P. S. Act involving commercial quantity unless the conditions specified in the Section 37 of N. D. P. S. Act are fulfilled. The submissions made by Sri Misra that the trial of the appellants stood vitiated on account of the samples from the seized contraband articles having not been drawn in accordance with the procedure prescribed by instructions 1/88 and seized contraband articles having been disposed of by the prosecution pursuant to the order of Magistrate passed after the Additional Sessions Judge had taken cognizance of the offence prima facie appear to be without any substance. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that the appellants have failed to satisfy that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the appellants have not committed the offences for which they have been convicted. Thus, no case for enlarging the appellants on bail during the pendency of the appeal is made out. The prayer for bail is accordingly rejected. However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the hearing of all the three appeals is expedited. As the lower court records have already been received, office is directed to prepare the paper-books of the aforementioned three appeals within four weeks. List for hearing in the first week of November, 2010. It is being made clear that the views expressed by this Court on the respective contentions advanced by learned counsel for the parties are tentative and shall not prejudice either of the sides at the time of hearing of the appeals.