JUDGMENT Harsh Kumar, J. Heard Shri Daya Shankar Mishra learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, Special Public Prosecutor (Narcotics) on behalf of opposite party, the Union of India. The bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant Neeraj Kumar Katiyar involved in Criminal Case No.226 of 2013, under Sections 8/20/23 of NDPS Act, D.R.I, District Varanasi. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated; that allegedly recovered quantity of Charas has not been recovered from the applicant; that the entire story mentioned in memo of recovery and arrest is false and concocted; that the alleged recovery of contraband from the Car is and the Car does not belong to the applicant; that there there is no independent witness of alleged recovery; that the compliance of provisions of Sections 42, 50 , 52 and 57 of NDPS Act has not been made in view of law laid down in State of Rajasthan Vs. Parmanand, AIR (SC)-2014-1384; M. Prabhulal Vs. The Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence [2003(47) ACC 1151]; and Dilip Vs. Parmanand, AIR (SC)-2014-1384; M. Prabhulal Vs. The Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence [2003(47) ACC 1151]; and Dilip Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR(SC)-2007-369; that out of the allegedly recovered material, three samples are alleged to have been prepared which is against the prescribed procedure of preparing two samples and so the entire proceedings are wrong and illegal; that the car being driven by the applicant is alleged to have been stopped at about 12.00 in noon on 24.4.2013 and the search is alleged to have been made at a distant place, at the office at Nadesar, Varanasi; that due notice of search before Gazetted Officer was not given to the two accused separately and giving the joint notice to them is wrong and illegal; that the search of applicant and the vehicle before the Gazetted Officer who was accompanying the raiding party is wrong and illegal and ought to have been made before the nearest Magistrate; that recovery of huge quantity has been shown in order to show good work and the applicant was arrested near hotel India when after meeting his father, a railway employee at Allahabad, he was going to have Darshan of Vishwanath Baba; that the confessional statement of applicant recorded in police custody is not admissible in evidence; that the applicant is in custody since 24.4.2013 and the trial is not proceeding in accordance with law rather progress of trial is very slow; that as per provisions of Section 36 of NDPS Act the trial must be conducted before special court but no special court was constituted and so the entire proceedings of trial before additional sessions judge are liable to be quashed; that the copy of the order sheet filed by opposite party along with Supplementary Counter Affidavit, shows that the prosecution is not taking due interest in early disposal of the trial; that the applicant has no criminal history; that the applicant undertakes that he will not make misuse the liberty of bail; that the applicant is in custody since 24.4.2013. 3. Per contra learned counsel for Customs and Central Excise vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and contended that huge commercial quantity of Charas weighing 46.5 kg. 3. Per contra learned counsel for Customs and Central Excise vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and contended that huge commercial quantity of Charas weighing 46.5 kg. has been recovered from the vehicle being driven by the applicant; that the Narcotic drugs were being smuggled from neighbouring country Nepal, by the applicant in a very clever and planned manner by making a cavity within the bonut and rear portion of the old car; that the case laws relied on behalf of applicant are not applicable to the facts of the case and moreover since the compliance of all the provisions has been made the correctness of the same is to be considered at the time of disposal of trial after evidence; that it is wrong to say that compliance of Sections 42, 50, 52 or 57 of the NDPS Act has not been made; that it is wrong to say that joint notice was served on both the accused which does not comply with provisions of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act rather separate notices of search were not served on the two accused; that page nos.24 and 25 of the counter affidavit clearly show that separate notices of search were served on each of the two accused; that it is wrong to say that search before the gazetted officer accompanying the squad was not proper or ought to have been made before some Judicial Magistrate; that it is pertinent to mention that on request of accused, for search of some secured place, instead at the place of arrest on Gazipur - Vanarasi Road, on which the applicant driven the Car to nearest office; that it is wrong to say that making of search at some distance was wrong or improper and there is no allegation of any meanwhile manipulation or tampering with the goods recovered; that the arguments that three samples were taken in contravention of rules are absolutely wrong and baseless, rather same were taken in accordance with rules; that in any case by taking 3 samples of recovered goods in accordance with the rules the applicant has not been affected adversely; that in the case of Vijay Singh Chandubha Jadeja vs. State of Gujarat, (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 497 it has been held that the issues as raised by the applicant can only be raised at the time of trial; that it is wrong to say that trial is being conducted before an incompetent court and the applicant has not raised any such plea before the trial court; that after framing of charges the trial has commenced and is in progress; that statement of P.W.-1 was recorded on 23.8.2014 and despite part cross examination on 6 dates 2.5.2015, 8.5.2015, 2.6.2015, 3.7.2015 and 22.7.2015, the accused has not concluded the cross examination with P.W.-1 as yet after lapse of about 2 years; that the accused himself is delaying the progress of trial and whenever the prosecution witness appears before the court either the applicant moves adjournment application with the plea of his counsel being engaged in some other case in some other court or get the witness cross examined in part to some short extent with oral request by counsel of being busy elsewhere; that despite specific orders of the court on applicant's adjournment application, granting adjournment on 31.8.2015 for completing the cross examination on next date 19.9.2015, the accused again moved adjournment application on 19.9.2015; that the prosecution witness has returned several times without further cross examination during the period of last 2 years and if on any date the P.W.-1 could not appear for further cross examination, the prosecution cannot be blamed for the slow progress of trial; that the accused himself is obstructing and delaying the progress of trial in order to make a ground for bail; that the bail application is not liable to be allowed in view of provisions of Section 37 of NDPS Act; that there is nothing to show that after release on bail the applicant will not again get involved in similar offences; that if the applicant is released on bail he will delay and defraud the trial and will abscond to Nepal or to elsewhere and continue to commit similar offences. 4. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of offence, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, without commenting on the merits of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail. The bail application of applicant Neeraj Kumar Katiyar is liable to be rejected. 5. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.