JUDGMENT Manoj Misra, J. 1. Heard Sri Hari Shankar Singh for the applicant; Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh for the Central Bureau of Narcotic; the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking bail in Complaint No. 39 of 2015 (Union of India v. Suresh Kumar Gupta @ Chandu and another) arising out of Case Crime No. Nil of 2015, under Sections 8, 22, 27-A, 29 of Narcotic Durgs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, P.S. Ghazipur, District Ghazipur, pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Central Bureau of Narcotic-'CBN'), Court No. 8, Varanasi. 3. According to the prosecution case, 3400 injections of Buprenorphine (1600 injections under the brand name of N-Norphine and 1800 injections under the name of Lupigesic) of 2 ml each, in weight 6.80 kg, were recovered from a plastic bag kept and tied on the rear seat of a motorcycle which was being driven by one Suresh Kumar Gupta. It is alleged that after following due procedure, the said recovery was made which was well above the commercial quantity of 20 gm. It is alleged that from the statement of Suresh Kumar Gupta it transpired that Vijay Kumar Chaudhary @ Vijju Chaudhary (the applicant) had handed over the contraband articles for trafficking. Consequently, on 11.03.2015, according to the prosecution case, summons were issued to Vijay Kumar Chaudhary (the applicant) for appearance on 18.03.2015 before the Inspector/Investigating Officer, Preventive & Intelligence Cell, Central Bureau of Narcotics, Ghazipur for the purpose of recording statement under Section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Thereafter, according to the prosecution case, on 18.03.2015, the applicant is said to have admitted trafficking of the alleged psychotropic substance. On the basis of his statement as well as the statement of co-accused, a complaint was filed by Inspector/Investigating Officer, Preventive & Intelligence Cell, Central Bureau of Narcotics, Ghazipur under Sections 8, 22, 27-A and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that Sri D.K. Srivastava, who has filed the complaint as an Inspector was not competent to file the complaint. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that Sri D.K. Srivastava, who has filed the complaint as an Inspector was not competent to file the complaint. He placed reliance on paragraph 12 of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State through Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kulwant Singh, reported in 2003 (1) JIC 742 (SC) so as to contend that by virtue of Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) notification dated 27th September, 1989 made under Section 36-A of the Act, the Officers authorised for the purpose of filing complaint relating to an offence under the Act should be above the rank of Inspector in the Departments of Customs, Central Excise, Narcotics, Revenue Intelligence, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau and the Narcotics Control Bureau under the Ministry of Finance, Government of India. It has been submitted that since the complaint has been lodged not by an officer of the rank higher than the Inspector, the complaint is not maintainable. He has also submitted that the applicant has retracted his confessional statement on 13.04.2015 and as such the statement is not admissible. He has further submitted that according to Forensic report, the psychotropic substance of Buprenorphine which is said to have been recovered from the applicant was only 2.04 gm which is below the commercial quantity of 20 gm though above the small quantity of 1 gm prescribed in the Notification, therefore the rigours of section 37 of the NDPS Act would not be applicable. He has further contended that the applicant has no criminal history and is not previous convict and, in case of being released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 5. Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, who has appeared on behalf of Central Bureau of Narcotics, has submitted that in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State through Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kulwant Singh (supra), the Notification dated 27th September, 1989 has been misquoted whereas the correct notification provides as follows: - "PUBLISHED IN PART II-SECTION 3-SUB-SECTION (ii) OF GAZETTE OF INDIA (EXTRAORDINARY) DATED 27TH SEPTEMBER, 1989. [No. 611] GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department of Revenue) New Delhi, the 27th September, 1989. [No. 611] GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department of Revenue) New Delhi, the 27th September, 1989. ORDER S.O.763 (E): - In exercise of the power conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 36A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), the Central Government hereby authorises the officers of and above the rank of Inspector in the Departments of Customs, Central Excise, Narcotics, Revenue Intelligence, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau and the Narcotics Control Bureau under the Ministry of Finance, Government of India for filing of complaint relating to an offence under the said Act before Special Courts. Sd/- (A.C. SALDANHA) Additional Secretary to the Government of India" 6. He has submitted that a bare perusal of the Notification dated 27th September, 1989 would go to show that Central Government has authorised the officers of and above the rank of Inspector in the Departments of Customs, Central Excise, Narcotics, Revenue Intelligence, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau and the Narcotics Control Bureau under the Ministry of Finance, Government of India for filing a complaint relating to an offence under the N.D.P.S. Act before the Special Courts. It has been submitted that since Sri D.K. Srivastava who has filed the complaint is of the rank of an Inspector, therefore, as per the Notification dated 27th September, 1989, he was fully competent to file the complaint. 7. Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh further submitted that the statement recorded under Section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act is admissible in evidence and is not hit by section 25 of the Evidence Act. In support of the said submission, he has placed reliance on certain observations made by the Apex Court in its judgments in the case of Ram Singh v. Central Bureau of Narcotics : (2011) 3 SCC (Crl.) 181 and Union of India v. Satrohan : 2008 (63) ACC 902. He has also relied on decisions of this Court in the case of Virendra Kumar v. Union of India : 2005 (51) ACC 618 and Smt. Dulari Devi @ Manju v. Narcotic Control Bureau, Varanasi. He has further submitted that the bar of section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act would be attracted in the instant case inasmuch as the quantity recovered was much higher than the commercial quantity. He has further submitted that the bar of section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act would be attracted in the instant case inasmuch as the quantity recovered was much higher than the commercial quantity. He has placed before the Court notification dated 18th November, 2009 wherein it has been provided that the quantities shown in column 5 and column 6 of the Table relating to the respective drugs shown in column 2 shall apply to the entire mixture or any solution or any one or more narcotic durgs or psychotropic substances of that particular drug in dosage form or isomers, esters, ethers and salts of these durgs, including salts of esters, ethers and isomers, wherever existence of such substance is possible and not just its pure drug content. 8. Relying on the said notification, Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh submitted that although the pure drug content contained in the recovered injections may have been less than 20 gm but as per the Notification dated 18th November, 2009, weight of the entire solution was to be taken into account and not the pure drug content. It has been submitted that since the weight of the solution contained in 3,400 injections was 6.80 kg which was much above the commercial quantity of 20 gm, the quantity involved in the present case was commercial quantity and, therefore, the bar of section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act while considering the question of grant of bail would apply. 9. He has further invited the attention of the Court to various judgments so as to demonstrate that where the commercial quantity is involved, then the bail ought to be considered only when the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. He has further submitted that at this stage since confession has been made, which is admissible under Section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act, this Court cannot reasonably conclude, at this stage, that the said confession was made on ground of coercion or undue influence because that is a matter of trial and the evidence is yet to be led. He has further submitted that it is not a fit case where the bail plea of the applicant should be accepted. 10. He has further submitted that it is not a fit case where the bail plea of the applicant should be accepted. 10. Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh has also submitted that although the applicant may have retracted the confessional statement but that confessional statement was not retracted when the applicant was first produced before the Magistrate on remand but was retracted much later on. It has been submitted that the applicant had been arrested on 18.03.2015 after the confessional statement and was thereafter produced before the Remand Magistrate whereas the retraction came much later on 13.04.2015. He has thus submitted that under the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the large quantity of the psychotropic substance involved, the applicant ought not to be released on bail. He has also submitted that nothing has been shown to demonstrate that there was any mala fides which may have worked against the applicant leading to his false implication. 11. I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion as to whether the confessional statement of the applicant was made under coercion or voluntarily, at this stage, this Court does not find any such ground which may enable the Court to grant bail to the applicant keeping in mind the provisions of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The bail application is rejected.