JUDGMENT Vijay Lakshmi, J. 1. By means of this application the applicant Om Prakash Gupta has prayed to release him on bail in Case Crime No. Nil of 2015, u/s 8/20 N.D.P.S. Act, P.S. C.B.N., Ghazipur, District Ghazipur. 2. Heard Mr. Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for Central Bureau of Narcotic. Perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case showing a fictitious recovery of 100 Kg 500 Gms Ganja from a Fiat Liniya Car, which was being driven by the applicant, who has no concern with the Ganja and nothing was recovered from the car as stated in the recovery memo. In fact the applicant along with co-accused Vinod Kumar, who is the owner of the vehicle, was going to B.H.U., Varanasi, for medical check up of Vinod Kumar. On the way his vehicle was checked by the authorities during which some hot talks took place and the applicant was falsely implicated in this case. It is next contended that there is no independent witness of the recovery and as such there is no evidence against the applicant except his own confessional statement before the officers of Central Bureau of Narcotic, which is not admissible. Learned counsel has next contended that the applicant was in the vehicle as a driver and he was completely unaware of the fact that Ganja was kept in the vehicle. It is next contended that the prosecution story that more than 100 Kg of Ganja was recovered from a secret hidden chamber constructed in the dickey of a Feat Liniya Car is wholly unreliable because such a huge quantity of an article like Ganja cannot be kept in such a small place like hidden chamber constructed inside the dickey of the car. It is next contended that the recovered article was found by the search team kept in three bags but samples of 24 Gms each were taken only from two bags for sending to chemical analyst. It is next contended that the mandatory provisions of sections 42 and 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act have not been complied with. It is lastly contended that the applicant is languishing in jail since 5.12.2015. It is next contended that the mandatory provisions of sections 42 and 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act have not been complied with. It is lastly contended that the applicant is languishing in jail since 5.12.2015. There is no likelihood of early disposal of the trial and the applicant undertakes that if released on bail, he will never misuse his liberty and will cooperate in trial. 4. Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for Central Bureau of Narcotic, has vehemently opposed the bail application by contending that more than 100 Kg of Ganja, kept in compressed form, which is multiple times more than its commercial quantity of 20 Kg, has been recovered from inside the dickey of the car, the applicant was driving and as such it was in the conscious possession of the applicant, therefore, in view of the stringent provisions of section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act the applicant is not entitled for bail. He has next contended that there is no infringement of the provisions of section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act, in view of the well settled legal position that when search is conducted by a Gazetted officer himself, the compliance of section 42 N.D.P.S. Act is not necessary. The learned counsel in this regard has placed reliance on the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India v. Satrohan, 2008(8) SCC 313 in which the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the requirement under section 42(2) N.D.P.S. Act is confined to a case where action has been taken by the officer below the rank of Gazetted Officer without the authorisation and not in the case where officers of Narcotic Bureau have made search. 5. Learned counsel for N.C.B. Has next contended that the requirement of section 50 N.D.P.S. Act is also limited only to those cases where the contraband has been carried on the person of the accused. In this regard the learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments rendered in the cases of Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2011 SC 964 and Ajmer Singh v. State of Haryana, (2010)3 SCC 746 in which the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act can be invoked only in case where the narcotic substance has been recovered as a consequence of body search of the accused. It is not applicable to the cases where no search of a person is involved. Thus search and recovery from a bag, briefcase, container etc. does not come within the ambit of section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The learned counsel has contended that in the present case the illicit trafficking of Ganja has been recovered from the dickey of the car, therefore, section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act has no application. He has next contended that the affidavit filed in support of the bail application itself shows that the applicant is trying to mislead the court because in paragraph no. 6 of the affidavit the applicant has stated that nothing was recovered from the car and he being the driver of the vehicle on a monthly paid salary having no concern with such type of transportation was unaware of the fact that Ganja was kept in the vehicle whereas in paragraph no. 10 of the affidavit, the applicant has stated that co-accused Vinod Kumar and he himself both were addicted and habitual of taking Ganja, therefore, while going on the highway they had kept Ganja in the car for their personal use. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dehal Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2011(72) ACC 661 in which under almost similar circumstances the Apex Court has held as under: “Both the appellants have been found travelling in the car from which Charas was recovered and, therefore, they were in possession thereof. They were knowing each other. They were not travelling in a public transport vehicle. Distinction has to be made between accused travelling by public transport vehicle and private vehicle. It needs no emphasis that to bring the offence within the mischief of Section 20 of the Act possession has to be conscious possession. Section 35 of the Act recognizes that once possession is established the Court can presume that the accused had a culpable mental state, meaning thereby conscious possession. Further the person who claims that he was not in conscious possession has to establish it. Presumption of conscious possession is further available under Section 54 of the Act, which provides that accused may be presumed to have committed the offence unless he accounts for satisfactorily the possession of contraband.” 6. Mr. Further the person who claims that he was not in conscious possession has to establish it. Presumption of conscious possession is further available under Section 54 of the Act, which provides that accused may be presumed to have committed the offence unless he accounts for satisfactorily the possession of contraband.” 6. Mr. Sanjay Singh has further placed reliance on the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India v. Rattan Mallik alias Habul, (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 831 in which the Hon’ble Apex Court in para 12 of the judgment has interpreted Section 37 of the N.D.P.S., as under: - “It is plain from a bare reading of the non-obstante clause in the Section and sub-section (2) thereof that the power to grant bail to a person accused of having committed offence under the NDPS Act is not only subject to the limitations imposed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it is also subject to the restrictions placed by sub-clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Apart from giving an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor to oppose the application for such release, the other twin conditions viz; (i) the satisfaction of the Court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence; and (ii) that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, have to be satisfied. It is manifest that the conditions are cumulative and not alternative. The satisfaction contemplated regarding the accused being not guilty, has to be based on “reasonable grounds”. 7. The expression “reasonable grounds” has not been defined in the said Act but means something more than prima facie grounds. It connotes substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence he is charged with. The reasonable belief contemplated in turn points to existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. [Vide Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari (2007) 7 SCC 798 ]. Thus, recording of satisfaction on both the aspects, noted above, is sine qua non for granting of bail under the NDPS Act.” 8. [Vide Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari (2007) 7 SCC 798 ]. Thus, recording of satisfaction on both the aspects, noted above, is sine qua non for granting of bail under the NDPS Act.” 8. The learned counsel has submitted that a raiding team of Central Bureau of Narcotic, constituted in accordance with law on the basis of a secret information intercepted the blue coloured Feat Liniya Car being driven by the applicant with co-accused Vinod Kumar sitting at his side and recovered a huge quantity of contraband. Thereafter the statements of both the accused persons were recorded under the provisions of N.D.P.S. Act in which they confessed their guilt and also disclosed the modus opperendi adopted by them in illicit trafficking of Ganja. The learned counsel while drawing the attention of this court to the provisions of section 67 of N.D.P.S. Act has submitted that the statement recorded under section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act is admissible in evidence and it shall not be hit by the provisions of section 25 of the Evidence Act as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Munna and another, 2004 Cri. L.J. 4183 (SC) in which the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the admission under section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act will not be hit by section 25 of 26 of the Evidence Act. The learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this court to Section 54 of the N.D.P.S. Act, which raises a presumption against the accused that he has committed an offence under this Act unless and until the contrary is approved. 9. Considered the rival submissions. 10. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the huge quantity of recovered contraband, the relevant legal provisions and in wake of the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in various judgments cited above, there does not appear any good ground to release the applicant on bail. 11. The bail application is accordingly rejected.