JUDGMENT Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. - This bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., has been preferred by the applicant, seeking his release on bail, for his alleged involvement in commission of an offence under Section 8/22/60 of Narcotics Drugs & Psychotropic Substances, Act (hereinafter referred to as the NDPS Act) which was registered against him by way of Case Crime No.787 of 2019 at P.S. Kotwali, Roorkee, District Haridwar on 15.12.2019. This judgment has to be not only a simplicitor consideration of bail application; but, would also be, dealing with the authorities, which had been relied by the counsel for the applicant for substantiating, his case for consideration of the bail application and his consequential release. 2. The precise facts which engages consideration in the present bail application, though which is partially pleaded in the bail application initially and partially later on, developed by way of a supplementary affidavits dated 02.11.2020 and 22.03.2021, but for the purpose, they are being dealt with as under: 3. The aforesaid FIR, which was registered as against the present applicant, as Case Crime No.787 of 2019, on 15.12.2019 at 16:46 'O' Clock, it has been complaint of that the Sub-Inspector Mr. Sanjay Singh Negi, on receipt of an information from his sources came to know that a White I-20 Car, bearing Registration No.UK08 AP 3105, was expected to cross over a place commonly called as Malak Chungi and as per information which was received by the Sub Inspector, it was informed that the said vehicle was carrying the contrabanded goods, which were the prohibited articles, as per the provisions contained under the NDPS Act. It is the case of the complainant in the FIR, that on receipt of the said information, prior to his Ravanagi Report No.54 at 16:46 'O' Clock; even much prior to it he has sent the Chatek, alongwith two constables in order to keep vigil and to apprehend the car, which was alleged to be informed was carrying the contraband goods. Subsequently, the police team headed by Sub-Inspector Mr. Sanjay Singh Negi, the complainant are said to have reached the place called as 'Malak Chungi' on Haridwar Road, near Laksar Bus Stop and they apprehended the car bearing Registration No.UK08 AP 3105. Subsequently, the police team headed by Sub-Inspector Mr. Sanjay Singh Negi, the complainant are said to have reached the place called as 'Malak Chungi' on Haridwar Road, near Laksar Bus Stop and they apprehended the car bearing Registration No.UK08 AP 3105. When the police officials wanted to stop the car, the driver of the vehicle attempted to turn the car and make an attempt to run away from the spot, but however after exercising of force, the police party was able to stop the car and apprehended the driver, who was driving the said car as it was informed by the police informer. 4. The police team which apprehended the car on asking the name of the person, driving the car, the driver very candidly informed that his name is 'Sharukh', and he informed that he was carrying the contrabanded article called as NRX-Buprrnorphine Injection (Rexogesie). When the car was stopped, the present applicant very candidly had intimated the police party, which was headed by Mr. Sanjay Singh Negi the Sub-Inspector, that his vehicle was carrying a carton, in the rear of the car, filled with aforesaid contrabanded articles as detailed above, which were the injections, which he contended and stated that he used to sell it to the students. On the car being apprehended, the Sub-Inspector informed the applicant of his rights, which were enshrined and protected by Section 50 of NDPS Act; for the purposes of conducting the search and seizer by a Gazetted Officer. The present applicant on being informed by the Sub-Inspector, about his rights conferred under Section 50 of the NDPS Act; had expressed his opinion that he wanted the search to be carried on him and his car by a Gazetted Officer. Accordingly, Mr. Sanjay Singh Negi, the Sub Inspector, who had his Mobile bearing No.9412957506; at about 19:40 hours, is said to have given a call to the Circle Officer, Mr. Chandan Singh Bisht; on his Mobile No.9411112996, informing him about the occurrence of 15.12.2019 at about 16:46, and also informed to the applicant, that the Circle Officer, who happens to be an officer of a rank of a Gazetted Officer, would be falling to be an officer, who is competent to conduct the search and seizure, as per Section 50 of NDPS Act. On receipt of the said information the Circle Officer reached the spot by his official vehicle bearing Registration No.UK07 GA 2281 and thereafter after seeking a prior consent from the present applicant, he searched the applicant in person, as well as the car which was being driven by him, and was involved in the commissioning of the offence. 5. As per the prosecution story in the FIR, the applicant was wearing a sweater and a shirt and on being searched by the aforesaid Gazetted Officer, it was found that under his shirt four boxes of the aforesaid contrabanded injection were found being hidden and each box carried five strips of the injections, in it, with one strip having five injections in it; that means the total injections, which were recovered from the body in person of the applicant, were total 100 injections, and their volume capacity was of 2 ml each, with the chemical composition of the contrabanded salt to be 0.3 mg. in each injection, and hence, in the recovery memo, it was depicted that as per the said combination of the salt, it was about 0.600 mg. of Buperonorphine, the contrabanded salt, which was found to have recovered out of the said injection from the applicant. During the course of investigation, the applicant has informed and made a statement too, that he had brought these contrabanded articles/injection from Purkaji and all along the way till he was apprehended by the police team at Malak Chungi, he had sold some of the injections to the students and on the way and he has recovered money from them after the sale of them. The applicant further informed the Gazetted Officer in the presence of the police party headed by Mr. The applicant further informed the Gazetted Officer in the presence of the police party headed by Mr. Sanjay Singh Negi, the Sub-Inspector, that apart from the contrabanded, injections recovered from his possession, on person of the applicant, there was a carton in the diggi of the vehicle bearing Registration No.UK08 AP 3105, which was being driven by the applicant and when the police party seized the said carton from the rear of the vehicle; it was checked by the police party; in the presence of Gazetted Officer and it was found that the carton was having 36 boxes and each box was carrying 25 injections, which were the restricted psychotropic substances and as per the determination of the combination of the prohibited salt it was found that a total of 0.540 mg. of restricted salt, was found in possession of the applicant, being carried without any authority with him. Accordingly, the applicant was arrested on the spot on 15.12.2019, and the recovery memo was prepared in the light of torch and the head lights of the vehicle, because it was dark. The recovery memo was signed by the present applicant and he was taken in custody and rest of the articles for example purse, mobile and the cash, which was being carried by him were recovered and taken into custody and fard baramadgi was prepared by the police party at police station. 6. The applicant had preferred a bail application before the court of Special Judge, NDPS and the said bail application was rejected by the order of 20.12.2019; observing thereof that the restricted injections, which were numbered as 1000 injections, which were found from the possession of the applicant, they are included as Item No.169, in the Schedule of list of contrabanded goods described under the Act and the quantity thus recovered from the possession of the applicant, was much above the commercial quantity, as has been specified under the Act, which limits its maximum quantity to be 20 grams, but since the recovery itself was beyond the commercial quantity the bail application was rejected. Hence, the present bail application. 7. Hence, the present bail application. 7. When the present bail application before this Court, was preferred on 02.01.2020, the principal ground, which was taken by the applicant for seeking his release on bail, was that the factum of recovery being made from the car, after the same being intercepted by the police team, and the search being carried in the presence of the Circle Officer, the recovery of 1000 injections, were the facts which were not denied. But the applicant qualified the pleadings for the grant of bail on the ground that his implication in the commission of the aforesaid offence is false, and as a matter of fact, he has been made as a scapegoat, for the reason being that there was no independent witness of the alleged recovery, which was carried by the police team, and there was non compliance of Section 50 and 51 of the NDPS Act. Another ground, which was initially taken by the applicant in the bail application, was that there was a non compliance of the provisions contained under Section 100 (4) of Cr.P.C., as all the witnesses of the alleged recovery were the police personnel and their recovery and recovery memo exclusively, cannot be relied with, though we cannot loose sight of the fact that the recovery memo thus prepared in the presence of the Gazetted Officer, was duly endorsed by the applicant and he had rather confessed his guilt of having carrying the contrabanded goods in the presence of the Gazetted Officer and he took a plea that he was not carrying any criminal history. At this juncture, this Court feels it to be necessary to deal with the pleadings raised by the applicant in the supplementary affidavit which was filed on 02.11.2020, wherein the additional plea was raised by the applicant for the first time to the following effect:- (i) That there was no video recording made of the alleged search, seizure and arrest. (ii) The so called, call details, as amongst the members of the team of police officials, calling the Circle Officer for effecting search and seizure under Section 50 of the Act, was not provided to him. 8. (ii) The so called, call details, as amongst the members of the team of police officials, calling the Circle Officer for effecting search and seizure under Section 50 of the Act, was not provided to him. 8. Absolutely, a new case was carved out by the applicant for the first time in the supplementary affidavit, which was neither a case in the bail application, which was filed before the court below, or was ever a case, which was pleaded at the first available instance, even when the bail was preferred before this Court on 02.01.2020, the new case which was carved out by the applicant was that the entire theory of the applicant's engagement in the commission of the offence is per-se false, for the reason being that it is out of an animosity, which the applicant contends, that he had because Jahid Ali and Parvez , who are said to be old drug paddlers, they were got arrested, on an information, which was supplied by the father of the applicant, as back as on 30.05.2016 and hence on that pretext, he contended that it was Jahid Ali, who had cooked up a false story in collusion with Mr. Ravindra Singh, the Sub-Inspector, who is alleged to be an associate of Jahid Ali, who was allegedly, a relative of Ravindra Singh, Sub-Inspector. 9. A new story was built up by the applicant, for the first time, yet again, altogether that Parvej, who was a co-accused with Jahid Ali, on 15.12.2019, has taken the car from the applicant, for one hour and had planted the drugs in it, which was later on seized by the police party on 15.12.2019, from the applicant at Malak Chungi. Hence, the prosecution case cannot be relied, and he deserves to be released on bail. 10. This entire theory of the applicant, which was developed by way of a supplementary affidavit for the first time on 02.11.2020, in the absence of the same being substantiated by placing any material on record before the learned trial court or even before this Court; it could be rationally said that it is absolutely a concocted and a false story, which was developed by the applicant as an after thought. In order to carve out a case of malice, which was allegedly activated by Jahid Ali, because the father of the applicant was instrumental in getting him arrested for the alleged involvement of Jahid Ali, in dealing with the drugs. 11. The counsel for the applicant further contended that in the absence of there being a video recording, which has been mandated by the judgment rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 25.07.2018, the entire story would be false and particularly a reference was made by the applicant to the ratio laid down by the Coordinate Bench in the matters of Ashok Chauhan. 12. He further submits that the facts and circumstances of the present case, stands squarely covered, on account of the grant of an identical bail being Bail Application No.977 of 2013 of one Mr. Arif, which was granted by this Court by an order of 09.09.2013, which was arising from a different Case Crime No.171 of 2013 (a precedent of bail relied which was granted six years prior in time to the present offence.) 13. There are two aspects of the matter, which this Court feels it to be necessary, to deal with at this stage itself, that as far as the reference made by the applicant to the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court necessitating the propriety of video recording of the instances of search and seizure, as has been laid down in the judgment of Ashok Chauhan. As far as this Court is concerned, if the said reference is taken into consideration, as it has been dealt with in para 15 of the said judgment reported in Ashok Chauhan vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2018) 2 UD 191 para 15 of the said judgment is referred to hereunder:- "15. Before parting, this Court intends to observe that, in many cases relating to N.D.P.S. Act, First Information Report is being lodged in cyclostyle manner. For example, while patrolling, the police party suddenly finds a suspicious person, who, after seeing the police party, tries to flee away. Police party apprehends that person immediately. In most of the cases, no independent witness is found. Though, search is made by the Gazetted Officer; but, again, in almost every case, he happens to be the police officer. For example, while patrolling, the police party suddenly finds a suspicious person, who, after seeing the police party, tries to flee away. Police party apprehends that person immediately. In most of the cases, no independent witness is found. Though, search is made by the Gazetted Officer; but, again, in almost every case, he happens to be the police officer. Compliance is shown to be made but question arises whether in absence of independent witness, innocent person can be implicated falsely? In such a situation, possibility of innocent person being implicated cannot be ruled out. Police party, apprehending the accused, even do not bother to enquire from that person the name of the person from whom he purchased the contraband. In almost every case, accused persons happen to be carrier and, on the basis of F.I.R. and evidence of police personnel, they are convicted. Now-a-days still cameras and video cameras are easily available and videography of alleged recovery showing the involvement of the accused can easily be done, which is being done in most of the cases when arrest is made under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act. This aspect can be looked into. Therefore, I direct that a copy of this order be sent to the Home Secretary of the State and Director General of Police, Uttarakhand forthwith for taking necessary action." 14. This Court is of the view that the Coordinate Bench in its judgment while dealing with the issue regards the necessity of getting a video recording of the arrest in the NDPS cases too, it was not made as a mandatory rule of the proceedings, but rather it was only directory in nature in view of the findings which has been recorded in para 15 (as highlighted above), which has been referred to above. There the Court has only expressed an opinion and an expectation, that to prevent the corruption, it would be advisable to direct the Director General of Police of State of Uttarakhand, for taking necessary action for getting the video recording; meaning as per my view thereby it was not a positive directive, but rather it was the instructions for the State to comply with para 15 of (page 4) of supplementary affidavit. 15. 15. In relation thereto the learned counsel for the applicant has made a further reference to para 29 to 33 of the judgment as reported in , Harish Chandra vs. State of Uttarakhand,2020 1 UD 106 which was based upon yet an earlier ratio which was laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment reported in Union of India vs. Mohan Lal and another, (2016) 3 SCC 379 and particularly has extracted in para 19 of the said judgment, of Mohan Lal (Supra) which reads as under:- "19. There are two other aspects that need to be noted at this stage. The first is that notification dated 16th January, 2015 does not in terms supersede Standing Order No. 1/89 insofar as the said Standing Order also prescribes the procedure to be followed for disposal of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic and controlled Substances and Conveyances. Specific overriding of the earlier Standing Order would have avoided a certain amount of confusion which is evident on account of simultaneous presence of Standing Order No. 1/89 and notification dated 16th January, 2015. For instance in para (1) of Standing Order No. 1/89 only certain narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances enumerated therein could be disposed of while notification dated 16th January, 2015 provides for disposal of all Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic and controlled Substances and Conveyances. Again in terms of Standing Order No. 1/89 the procedure for making of application was marginally different from the one stipulated in Notification dated 16th January, 2015 not only insofar as the procedure related to the officers who could make the application is concerned but also in relation to the procedure that the DDC would follow while directing disposal. In both the notifications are prescribed the limits upto which the disposal could be directed. In case of excess quantity the disposal under the Standing Order No. 1/89 had to be done in the presence of the head of the Department whereas according to notification of 2015 in the event of excess quantity or value the disposal has to be by a high level Drug Disposal Committee to be constituted by the head of the Department. Again while Standing Order No. 1/89 specifically required the approval of the Court for disposal, notification dated 16th January, 2015 does not stipulate such approval as a specific condition. Again while Standing Order No. 1/89 specifically required the approval of the Court for disposal, notification dated 16th January, 2015 does not stipulate such approval as a specific condition. Be that as it may, to the extent the subsequent notification prescribes a different procedure, we treat the earlier notification/Standing Order No. 1/89 to have been superseded. In order to avoid any confusion arising out of the continued presence of two notifications on the same subject we make it clear that disposal of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic and controlled Substances and Conveyances shall be carried out in the following manner till such time the Government prescribes a different procedure for the same: 16. As far as the principles of Mohan Lal (Supra) case, which was relied in Harish Chandra judgment reported in , Harish Chandra vs. State of Uttarakhand,2020 1 UD 106 if para 33 is taken into consideration it was from the prospective of compliance of Section 52 (A) Sub Section (3); it was yet again only the parameters which was widely laid down and was expressed and expected to be followed while the High Court deals with the applications in order to watch the performance of the Magistrate of the subordinate court in order to deal with the menace of drugs which has now taken an alarming dimensions and particularly in the State of Uttarakhand, where no slackness could be adopted:- "33. Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India vs. Mohan Lal & Anr.,2016 3 SC 379, has held that:- "19 . There is in our opinion no manner of doubt that the seizure of the contraband must be followed by an application for drawing of samples and certification as contemplated under the Act. There is equally no doubt that the process of making any such application and resultant sampling and certification cannot be left to the whims of the officers concerned. The scheme of the Act in general and Section 52-A in particular, does not brook any delay in the matter of making of an application or the drawing of samples and certification. There is equally no doubt that the process of making any such application and resultant sampling and certification cannot be left to the whims of the officers concerned. The scheme of the Act in general and Section 52-A in particular, does not brook any delay in the matter of making of an application or the drawing of samples and certification. While we see no room from prescribing or reading a time frame into the provisions, we are of the view that an application for sampling and certification ought to be made without undue delay and the Magistrate on receipt of any such application will be expected to attend to the application and to do the needful, within a reasonable period and without any undue delay or procrastination as is mandated by sub-section (3) of Section 52A (supra). We hope and trust that the High Courts will keep a close watch on the performance of the Magistrates in this regard and through the Magistrates on the agencies that are dealing with the menace of drugs which has been taken alarming dimensions in this country partly because of the ineffective and lackadaisical enforcement of the laws and procedures and cavalier manner in which the agencies and at the times Magistracy in this country addresses a problem of such serious dimensions." 17. This Court of the view that the said direction was also only regulatory in nature and it was a suggestion which was expressed, and it was not a mandate which was determined at that point of time to be adhered in the NDPS cases, at the stage of arrest, seizure or recovery of the contraband. 18. This Court of the view that the said direction was also only regulatory in nature and it was a suggestion which was expressed, and it was not a mandate which was determined at that point of time to be adhered in the NDPS cases, at the stage of arrest, seizure or recovery of the contraband. 18. There is another logic, why this Court is not agreeing with the argument of the counsel for the applicant pertaining to the necessity of complying with the alleged direction of video recording of the incident of search, seizure and arrest; its because invariably such type of incidents of seizure and search, looking to the topography of the State and its geographical constraints, an accessibility are normally too difficult in the areas, which is normally not accessed by the public at large or where normally the public is not readily made available, enabling to record them as witnesses of the incident of seizure and search, and at times it could not be ruled out too, that the search and seizure are being conducted, within such a short interval or notice of an information received by the police party, that video recording of all the circumstances and cases of NDPS, and in each cases invariably may not be practically possible. In this particular case there is yet another aspect which is to be taken into consideration, that the applicant, as per the pleading raised in the supplementary affidavit, which was filed by the applicant on 02.11.2020; with the change of counsel, for the first time, has brought the fact on record that he had filed an application before the learned trial court for getting the copy of video recording of the search, seizure and arrest, on record before the trial court, while his bail application was being considered by filing the same on 08.10.2020, and according to his own case as pleaded in para 5 of the supplementary affidavit; the said application was rejected by the learned trial court, by an order of 23.10.2020 and the said order has attained finality; as it has not been put to challenge by the applicant any further before any superior forum. 19. 19. The alleged theory of attributing malice, towards his alleged involvement in the commission of the present offence, on the pretext of the arrest of Jahid Ali, and Parvej, which was conducted on the basis of the information, which was allegedly supplied by the father of the applicant as back as on 30.05.2016, yet again does not repose much confidence on this theory, this Court is of the view that; it cannot not be relied with; for the reason being that the present incident itself has chanced much thereafter on 15.12.2019 and that to when there is no connectivity of it was established with the earlier incident of 30.05.2016, and that with the present incident of arrest and seizure of 15.12.2019, and furthermore, I am of the opinion, that if at all there was any malice on part of the complainant, for an earlier action of the father of the applicant of 2016, I am of the view that this plea of defence, which was already earlier available to the applicant, it ought to have been taken as defence, at the very first instance, particularly at the time when the bail application was being considered by the learned trial court, or even at the stage when it was being instituted before this Court. As far as his own statement which has been recorded in the recovery memo of carrying psychotropic substances; preparation of the recovery memo, the recovery of contrabanded article to the extent, which has already been discussed above are the facts which are admitted by the applicant, as all these documents were duly signed by him, without any protest as such. 20. This Court had consistently during the course of argument, called upon the counsel for the applicant Mr. 20. This Court had consistently during the course of argument, called upon the counsel for the applicant Mr. Vinod Sharma, to answer and address the Court on the impact of Section 37 of NDPS Act, as to what would be the impact of the recovery of the contrabanded goods being made from his possession, which was beyond the commercial quantity, as envisaged by Entry 169 of the Schedule to the Act, no plausible, or any justifiable, reply has been extended by the learned counsel for the applicant, and rather the impact of Section 37 of the Act, was consciously tried to be avoided, to be answered by the counsel for the applicant; because as per the consistent finding which has been recorded; the recovery of the contrabanded article from the applicant, was much beyond the commercial quantity and hence, the implication of Section 37 of the Act, as per the opinion of this Court becomes inevitably applicable, which stipulates certain restrictions in consideration of the bail application, in the circumstances where recovery of contraband is beyond the commercial quantity. 21. The counsel for the applicant had placed reliance on the judgment, as has been rendered by the Coordinate Bench, in the First Bail Application No.977 of 2013 Arif vs. State of Uttarakhand. At that stage the Court, which was seized with the jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it had for considering the bail application, had exercised its inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. while quashing the FIR and its implication and consideration, were limited to under the facts and circumstances of the said case, where the direction was issued to register the FIR against the police officials, for the offences punishable under Sections 193, 195, 196, 197, 199, 200, 2003, 420, 466 and 471 of the IPC; for their dereliction in performance of their official duties and because of the false implication of the applicant therein. As per my view, in fact, the said judgment of 09.09.2013, as has been rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, in Arif's case (supra) was not laying down a precedent, but was rather yet again only a direction for the competent authority for an action to be taken against a police authority for a wrongful registration of the FIR, owing to the specific facts and circumstances of the case, as it was involved consideration in the Arif's case, which is not identical in nature; as pleaded by the counsel for the applicant in the present case. Hence as far as, the view of this Court is concerned, I am of the view that the said principle will not be applicable, herein and that too also in the light of the fact of the judgment reported in Pooja Pal vs. Union of India, (2016) 3 SCC 135 where almost an identical direction was issued for registration of FIR against the erring police personnel, which was yet again a case which was dealing with an aspect of a final adjudication of the alleged involvement of the accused therein in the commission of an offence and the effect of a false registration of the FIR. 22. There is yet an another distinction to be carved out in the present case, because even as per the C.O.'s statement which was though recorded in under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., he has made reference to the G.D. entries and no motive or malice as such, which was pleaded by the applicant in the supplementary affidavit, at a later stage, was said to be justified and established to be justified by the applicant, under the facts and circumstances of the present case. Thus in the statement of the C.O. he has specifically observed that the contrabanded article, which was recovered from the possession of the applicant, was beyond the commercial quantity and that there was a strict compliance of Section 50 and 60 of the NDPS Act, for taking in possession the articles recovered, for the pleading raised to the contrary no reliance can be placed on the same, at this stage for consideration of bail, which would obviously be a subject matter of judicial scrutiny during trial of the case. 23. 23. When this bail application was pending consideration before this Court, the Coordinate Bench of this Court by an order of 19.11.2020 directed the Government Advocate to place on record the video recording on record as it was allegedly claimed by the applicant, on basis of judgment of Ashok Chauhan (Supra) and later on by an order of 10.03.2021, the Investigating Officer, was present and for the purposes of the alleged non compliance of Section 52(A) (2) of NDPS Act, the Investigating Officer, has very candidly made a statement that since it was a sudden search , which was done within a very short interval of receipt of information, the videography could not be possible in the circumstances of the present case. As far as the plea of call detail report is concerned the Investigating Officer, has answered the Court's query to its satisfaction on 10.03.2021, that since one year has lapsed the CDR report cannot be received now by the I.O. as of now i.e. 10.03.2021. 24. Consequently, the argument which had been extended, that alleged seizure and search, since was contrary to the provisions of the NDPS Act, the presumption under Section 114 (g) of the Evidence Act, would be drawn in favour of the present applicant, I am not in agreement with, it for the reason being that since his own application stood rejected by an order of the trial court dated 23.10.2020, which has attained finality, no apparent error of non compliance of Section 52(A)(2) of NDPS Act, could be complaint of by the applicant in the present case at this stage, which is still left open to be considered by the trial court, when the applicant is tried for the offence, on its merits. 25. 25. By way of a repetition, the other authorities on which the counsel has placed reliance pertaining to the necessity of the video recording, as already observed above that they were only the directives for laying down a procedure and not the mandate, where the Court has expressed any positive opinion, it was only an expectations from the investigating agency, but the other judgments on which the reliance has been placed where the video recording were expected to have been made as an essential part of investigation, are not the case in relation to the NDPS Act and hence, principally those judgments will not be applicable in the present case as were based on different facts and circumstances of the case, and in relation to other offences, where the parameters of investigation or trial entails a different percept altogether. 26. The Standing Counsel has later on filed a supplementary counter affidavit on 13.05.2021; clarifying his plea pertaining to the compliance of Section 52 (A) and has observed that the inventory of the contraband recovered, was made in the presence of the applicant. The samples were sealed in his presence. The samples have been sent for FSL examination and the other confesticated articles had been kept in malkhana in compliance of the provisions of Section 52(A) (2) of the Act, which are still lying there in the safe custody. The facts stated therein, remained unrebutted by the applicant till date by filing any reply to it, hence would amount to be an admission of facts, narrated by the Government Advocate, in the supplementary counter affidavit. 27. The facts stated therein, remained unrebutted by the applicant till date by filing any reply to it, hence would amount to be an admission of facts, narrated by the Government Advocate, in the supplementary counter affidavit. 27. Apart from the above cited judgment on which the learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance, he had further for the purposes of invoking the jurisdiction of this Court, under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., had made references to number of other authorities of the Hon'ble Apex Court, as well as of this Court in support of his contention, In a reference thereto and particularly most of the authorities, which has been dealt with by the counsel for the applicant, pertains to the implications of Section 52 (A) of the NDPS Act, which is referred to and extracted hereunder:- " [52-A. Disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.-[(1) The Central Government may, having regard to the hazardous nature, vulnerability to theft, substitution, constraint of proper storage space or any other relevant consideration, in respect of any narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify such narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyance or class of narcotic drugs, class of psychotropic substances, class of controlled substances or conveyances, which shall, as soon as may be after their seizure, be disposed of by such officer and in such manner as that Government may, from time to time, determine after following the procedure hereinafter specified.] (2) Where any 4 [narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances] has been seized and forwarded to the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered under section 53, the officer referred to in sub-section (1) shall prepare an inventory of such 4 [narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances] containing such details relating to their description, quality, quantity, mode of packing, marks, numbers or such other identifying particulars of the 4 [narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances] or the packing in which they are packed, country of origin and other particulars as the officer referred to in sub-section (1) may consider relevant to the identity of the 4 [narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances] in any proceedings under this Act and make an application, to any Magistrate for the purpose of- (a) certifying the correctness of the inventory so prepared; or (b) taking, in the presence of such magistrate, photographs of 5 [such drugs, substances or conveyances] and certifying such photographs as true; (c) allowing to draw representative samples of such drugs or substances, in the presence of such magistrate and certifying the correctness of any list of samples so drawn. (3) Where an application is made under sub-section (2), the Magistrate shall, as soon as may be, allow the application. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1972) or the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every court trying an offence under this Act, shall treat the innventory, the photographs of 1 [narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances] and any list of samples drawn under sub-section (2) and certified by the Magistrate, as primary evidence in respect of such offence.]" 28. To start with the arguments which has been extended the learned counsel for the applicant he had made reference to the judgments rendered by the two Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court, as , Shafhi Mohd. vs. State of Himanchal, (2018) 5 SCC 311 . Later on, the said judgment of Shafhi Mohd. (supra) was reconsidered in judgment , Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI), (2018) 10 SCC 443 Ministry of Law and Justice and Ors by the three Judges Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court and particularly the reference may be had to the basic intention and purposes of the aforesaid two judgments which were under consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court. In case, if the judgments in itself in its nutshell are taken into consideration particularly that as referred in para 1 of the judgment, where it extracts the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Shafhi Mohd.'s judgment Shafhi Mohmad vs. State of Himanchal Pradesh, (2018) 5 SCC 311 . In case, if the judgments in itself in its nutshell are taken into consideration particularly that as referred in para 1 of the judgment, where it extracts the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Shafhi Mohd.'s judgment Shafhi Mohmad vs. State of Himanchal Pradesh, (2018) 5 SCC 311 . In fact, it was only suggestive in nature and it was a preposition, which was laid down while considering the argument which was extended by the learned Additional Solicitor General extracting the ratio laid by Hon'ble Apex Court from Karnail Singh s case, (2009) 8 SCC 539 , with regards to the implications of the Field Officers Hand Book, which was issued by the Narcotics Control Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, which as per the stipulations contained by the Narcotics Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Amendment Bill 2016, which was presented before the Lok Sabha by the Members of Parliament, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said judgment had only suggested the logistic support to be provided to such inspection and investigating teams and the methods of videography, which has been laid to be expected to be followed after taking the permission under Section 52(A) of the Act; for pre trial disposal of contraband. If the intention and purpose, as well as the spirit stipulated by the said judgment is considered from the prospective of sub para 4 to 6 of para 1 of the said judgment, which is extracted hereunder:- "4. Learned Additional Solicitor General has also drawn our attention to the Field Officers' Handbook issued by the Narcotics Control Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, inter-alia, suggesting that logistic support be provided to the search teams. It further suggests that all recovery and concealment methods should be videographed simultaneously. The said handbook 3 also suggests that permission should be taken Under Section 52A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 for pretrial disposal of the contraband. Further, reference has been made to the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Amendment) Bill, 2016 moved by a private member in the Lok Sabha. He submits that in his view such Bill will advance the interests of justice and he will advice the Government of India to consider and oversee adoption for these measures in the Country by investigating agencies. 5. Mr. He submits that in his view such Bill will advance the interests of justice and he will advice the Government of India to consider and oversee adoption for these measures in the Country by investigating agencies. 5. Mr. A.I. Cheema, learned Amicus points out that Second Proviso to Section 54A of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for videography of identification process in circumstances specified in the said provision. He also stated that there should be videography of confessional statement Under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure He states that such measures can also be adopted for recording dying declarations, identification processes and the post-mortem. "6. Since, we find that at the ground level these measures have not been fully adopted, we direct the Home Secretary, Government of India to ascertain from different Investigating Agencies to how far such measures can be adopted and what further steps be taken to make use of above technology for effective investigation and crime prevention." 29. It was yet again an endeavor which was made by the Hon'ble Apex Court by directing the Home Secretary, Government of India and consequent thereto, to direct the investigating agencies, as to in what manner and the measures can be adopted in order to make use of the above technology for effecting investigation. This Court cannot be oblivious of the fact, that if para 5 of the said judgment of Shafhi Mohd. (supra) which has dealt with the implications of Section 54 (A) of Cr.P.C., the second proviso to it, in fact, it was the videography aspect which was taken into consideration for the purposes of providing more authenticity to the process of identification, and statement which are recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. as it has been referred in sub para 5 of para 1 of the said judgment, which is quoted hereunder:- "5. Mr. A.I. Cheema, learned Amicus points out that Second Proviso to Section 54A of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for videography of identification process in circumstances specified in the said provision. He also stated that there should be videography of confessional statement Under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure He states that such measures can also be adopted for recording dying declarations, identification processes and the post-mortem." 30. He also stated that there should be videography of confessional statement Under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure He states that such measures can also be adopted for recording dying declarations, identification processes and the post-mortem." 30. If the implications of sub para 5 of para 1 of the said judgment is taken into consideration, the necessity of recording the videography was for the purposes of the recording of the confessional statement which are made under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and the measures, which could be adopted while recording the dying declaration, identification process and post mortem, that had been one of the prime factors, which was taken into consideration by the Hon'ble Apex Court, which was only directive in nature and was only a suggestion which was extended to the Government of India for its implications. What this Court wants to observe, that in view of the aforesaid reasoning, which has been given in relation to the said judgment of Shafhi Mohd. (Supra); it cannot be read and if it was lying down a ratio rather it was only a directive, which was issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court, and an expectation from the Government of India, for the purposes of adopting the certain procedure of videography to provide more authenticity to the investigation which has been carried out and that is why, if para 9, 10 and 11 of the said judgment, are taken into consideration, which are quoted hereunder:- "9. We are in agreement with the Report of the Committee of Experts that videography of crime scene during investigation is of immense value in improving administration of criminal justice. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana, (2009) 8 SCC 539 : MANU/SC/1323/2009 noted that technology is an important part in the system of police administration1. It has also been noted in the decisions quoted in the earlier part of this order that new techniques and devices have evidentiary advantages, subject to the safeguards to be adopted. Such techniques and devices are the order of the day. Technology is a great tool in investigation2. By the videography, crucial evidence can be captured and presented in a credible manner. 10. Such techniques and devices are the order of the day. Technology is a great tool in investigation2. By the videography, crucial evidence can be captured and presented in a credible manner. 10. Thus, we are of the considered view that notwithstanding the fact that as of now investigating agencies in India are not fully equipped and prepared for the use of videography, the time is ripe that steps are taken to introduce videography in investigation, particularly for crime scene as desirable and acceptable best practice as suggested by the Committee of the MHA to strengthen the Rule of Law. We approve the Centrally Driven Plan of Action prepared by the Committee and the timeline as mentioned above. Let the consequential steps for implementation thereof be taken at the earliest. 11. We direct that with a view to implement the Plan of Action prepared by the Committee, a Central Oversight Body (COB) be set up by the MHA forthwith. The COB may issue directions from time to time. Suggestions of the Committee in its report may also be kept in mind. The COB will be responsible for further planning and implementation of use of videography. We direct the Central Government to give full support to the COB and place necessary funds at its disposal. We also direct that the COB may issue appropriate directions so as to ensure that use of videography becomes a reality in a phased manner and in first phase of implementation by 15th July, 2018 crime scene videography must be introduced at least at some places as per viability and priority determined by the COB." 31. The directions contained therein as per my opinion, were suggestive in nature, on the basis of the report of Expert Committee, which was called for by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the said judgment in order to mandate the implications of the Constitutional Bench Judgment of Karnail Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2009) 8 SCC 539 , where the technology has been taken, as to be a great and effective tool in investigation. The videography, as a device for crucial evidence can be measured and presented in a credible manner and hence in para 10 of the said judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court had extended an expression that it would be 'desirable for acceptance' of the suggestions given therein to be adopted as a practice by the committees, in the enforcement of the criminal law and ultimately the directions given therein were contained in para 12, 13 and 14 of the said judgment, which are quoted hereunder:-. "12. We place on record the suggestion of the learned amicus that funding for this project may be initially by the Centre to the extent possible and a central server may be set up. These suggestions may be considered by the COB. We also note that law and order is a State subject. 13. We may also refer to a connected issue already dealt with by this Court in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal and Ors., (2015) 8 SCC 744 : MANU/SC/0799/2015 . This Court directed that with a view to check human rights abuse CCTV cameras be installed in all police stations as well as in prisons. There is need for a further direction that in every State an oversight mechanism be created whereby an independent committee can study the CCTV camera footages and periodically publish report of its observations. Let the COB issue appropriate instructions in this regard at the earliest. The COB may also compile information as to compliance of such instructions in the next three months and give a report to this Court. 14. Compliance of above directions may be ensured by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs in the Central Government as well as Home Secretaries of all the State Governments. An affidavit of progress achieved may be filed by the Oversight Body on or before 31st July, 2018. Put up the matter for further consideration on 1st August, 2018." 32. 14. Compliance of above directions may be ensured by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs in the Central Government as well as Home Secretaries of all the State Governments. An affidavit of progress achieved may be filed by the Oversight Body on or before 31st July, 2018. Put up the matter for further consideration on 1st August, 2018." 32. On scrutiny of the judgment aforesaid relied by the counsel for the applicant, as discussed above, in fact, it was not a mandate which was compulsorily made applicable by the Hon'ble Apex Court, and to be invariably followed in all the Criminal cases, irrespective of its factual backdrop and the nature and circumstances of an offence, which was the subject matter of investigation and particularly, if we take it from the prospective of the judgment referred therein in para 13 of the said judgment of Shafhi Mohd. (supra) from the view point of the judgment as reported in , D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416 on which the reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the applicant. In fact, if the spirit of 1997 judgment of D.K. Basu (Supra), is taken into consideration, in fact it was dealing with an aspect of providing checks and control for the purpose of curtailment of human rights and abuse and particularly the directives contained therein were for the purposes of installation of CCTV cameras in the police station, as well as in the prisons in order to keep a check and control on custodial violence, rape, death in police custody and lockups etc. "1. The Executive Chairman, Legal Aid Services, West Bengal, a non-political organisation registered under the Societies Registration Act, on 26th August, 1986 addressed a letter to the Chief Justice of India drawing his attention to certain news items published in the Telegraph dated 20, 21 and 22 of July, 1986 and in the Statesman and Indian Express dated 17th August, 1986 regarding deaths in police lock-ups and custody. The Executive Chairman after reproducing the news items submitted that it was imperative to examine the issue in depth and to develop "custody jurisprudence" and formulate modalities for awarding compensation to the victim and/or family members of the victim for atrocities and death caused in police custody and to provide for accountability of the officers concerned. The Executive Chairman after reproducing the news items submitted that it was imperative to examine the issue in depth and to develop "custody jurisprudence" and formulate modalities for awarding compensation to the victim and/or family members of the victim for atrocities and death caused in police custody and to provide for accountability of the officers concerned. It was also stated in the letter that efforts are often made to hush up the matter of lock-up deaths and thus the crime goes unpunished and "flourishes". It was requested that the letter alongwith the news items be treated as a writ petition under "public interest litigation" category. 8. The Law Commission of India also in response to the notice issued by this Court forwarded a copy of the 113th Report regarding "Injuries in police custody and suggested incorporation of Section 114-B in the Indian Evidence Act. 9. The importance of affirmed rights of every human being need no emphasis and, therefore, to deter breaches thereof becomes a sacred duty of the Court, as the custodian and protector of the fundamental and the basic human rights of the citizens. Custodial violence, including torture and death in the lock ups, strikes a blow at the Rule of Law, which demands that the powers of the executive should not only be derived from law but also that the same should be limited by law. Custodial violence is a matter of concern. It is aggravated by the fact that it is committed by the persons who are supposed to be the protectors of the citizens. It is committed under the shield of uniform and authority in the four walls of a police station or lock-up, the victim being totally helpless. The protection of an individual from torture and abuse by the police and other law enforcing officers is a matter of deep concern in a free society. These petitions raise important issues concerning police powers, including whether monetary compensation should be awarded for established infringement of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. The issues are fundamental. 10. "Torture" has not been defined in the Constitution or in other penal laws. 'Torture' of a human being by another human being is essentially an instrument to impose the will of the 'strong' over the 'weak' by suffering. The issues are fundamental. 10. "Torture" has not been defined in the Constitution or in other penal laws. 'Torture' of a human being by another human being is essentially an instrument to impose the will of the 'strong' over the 'weak' by suffering. The word torture today has become synonymous with the darker side of the human civilisation. Torture is a wound in the soul so painful that sometimes you can almost touch it, but it is also such intangible that there is no way to heal it. Torture is anguish squeezing in your chest, cold as ice and heavy as a stone paralyzing as sleep and dark as the abyss. Torture is despair and fear and rage and hate. It is a desire to kill and destroy including yourself. Adriana P. Bartow 11. No violation of any one of the human rights has been the subject of so many Conventions and Declarations as 'torture'- all aiming at total banning of it in all forms, but inspite of the commitments made to eliminate torture, the fact remains that torture is more widespread now than ever before. "Custodial torture" is a naked violation of human dignity and degradation which destroys, to a very large extent, the individual personality. It is a calculated assault on human dignity and whenever human dignity is wounded, civilisation takes a step backward-flag of humanity must on each such occasion fly half-mast. 12. In all custodial crimes what is of real concern is not only infliction of body pain but the mental agony which a person undergoes within the four walls of police station or lock-up. Whether it is a physical assault or rape in police custody, the extent of trauma, a person experiences is beyond the purview of law. 13. Custodial violence" and abuse of police power is not only peculiar to this country but it is widespread. It has been the concern of international community because the problem is universal and the challenge is almost global. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, which marked the emergence of a worldwide trend of protection and guarantee of certain basic human rights, stipulates in Article 5 that "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." Despite the pious declaration, the crime continues unabated, though every civilised nation shows its concern and takes steps for its eradication." 33. If a conjoint reading of the judgment of Shafhi Mohd. (Supra) and that of D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal (Supra), are taken into consideration, they were based upon all altogether a different set of circumstances intended and aimed to meet a particular contingency by adopting the measures of videography, in an effort for an in house control of affairs of police atrocities, for example in the prison, lockups, as well as, police station, which rather had intended to postulate to protect a human right. These judgments will have no implications or bearing, so far in the circumstances of the present case is concerned, where the a random checking, on the basis of the receipt of information of Narcotic, being unauthorizedly carried by the accused was apprehended by the police team, at a public place and that too in the night hours of the day, where practically, it would not be possible to adopt the suggestions of videographying, the search and seizure, which according to the contention of learned counsel for the applicant was mandatory, as per the said ratio, which I have already considered and recorded my reasons were only suggestions to be adopted by way of policy to ensure the protection of human rights at Police Station, Prison, Lockups etc. 34. This Court has already discussed the judgment of Ashok Chauhan, (2018) 2 UD 191, if said judgment is taken into consideration, it was a case which was dealing with the recovery of charas and the principles for adherence of Section 50 (1) NDPS Act, was being sought to be extracted in the facts and circumstances of that case, on the basis of the implications of the judgment reported in (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases 609 Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja vs. State of Gujarat,2002 2 SCC 281 Vaman Narayan Ghiya vs. State of Rajasthan,2002 2 SCC 281, the reference of which finds place in para 8 and para 6 of the said judgment. The wider principles given therein in para 8 of the judgment was in the light of the judgment of , Vaman Narayan Ghiya vs. State of Rajasthan,2002 2 SCC 281 which is extracted hereunder:- "8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Vaman Narayan Ghiya vs. State of Rajasthan,2002 2 SCC 281has discussed the term bail. The wider principles given therein in para 8 of the judgment was in the light of the judgment of , Vaman Narayan Ghiya vs. State of Rajasthan,2002 2 SCC 281 which is extracted hereunder:- "8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Vaman Narayan Ghiya vs. State of Rajasthan,2002 2 SCC 281has discussed the term bail. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also observed that while considering bail application, detailed discussion of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits is to be avoided. Paragraph 6, 7 8 and 11 of the said judgment are being referred hereunder:- 6. "Bail" remains an undefined term in the Cr.P.C. Nowhere else the term has been statutorily defined. Conceptually, it continues to be understood as a right for assertion of freedom against the State imposing restraints since the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, to which Indian is a signatory, the concept of bail has found a place within the scope of human rights. The dictionary meaning of the expression 'bail' denotes a security for appearance of a prisoner for his release. Etymologically, the word is derived from an old French verb 'bailer' which means to 'give' or 'to deliver', although another view is that its derivation is from the Latin term baiulare, meaning 'to bear a burden'. Bail is a conditional liberty. Strouds' Judicial Dictionary (Fourth Edition 1971) spells out certain other details. It states: "When a man is taken or arrested for felony, suspicion of felony, indicated of felony, or any such case, so that he is restrained of his liberty - And being by law bailable, offence surety to those which have authority to bail him, which sureties are bound for him to the Kings use in a certain sums of money, or body for body, that he shall appear before the Justices of Goale delivery at the next sessions etc. Then upon the bonds of these sureties, as is aforesaid, he is bailed, that is to say, set at liberty until the day appointed for his appearance." Bail may thus be regarded as a mechanism whereby the State devolutes upon the community the function of securing the presence of the prisoners, and at the same time involves participation of the community in administration of justice. 7. Personal liberty is fundamental and can be circumscribed only by some process sanctioned by law. 7. Personal liberty is fundamental and can be circumscribed only by some process sanctioned by law. Liberty of a citizen is undoubtedly important but this is to balance with the security of the community. A balance is required to be maintained between the personal liberty of the accused and the investigational right of the police. It must result in minimum interference with the personal liberty of the accused and the right of the police to investigate the case. It has to dovetail two conflicting demands, namely, on one hand, the requirements of the society for being shielded from the hazards of being exposed to the mis-adventures of a person alleged to have committed a crime; and on the other, the fundamental cannon of criminal jurisprudence, viz, the presumption of innocence of an accused till he is found guilty. Liberty exists in proportion to wholesome restrain, the more restraint on others to keep off from us, the more liberty we have. 8. The law of bail, like any other branch of law, has its own philosophy, and occupies an important place in the administration of justice and the concept of bail emerges from the conflict between the police power to restrict liberty of a man who is alleged to have committed a crime, and presumption of innocence in favour of the alleged criminal. An accused is not detained in custody with the object of punishing him on the assumption of his guilt. 11. While considering an application for bail, detailed discussion of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits is to be avoided. This requirement stems from the desirability that no party should have the impression that his case has been pre-judged. Existence of a prima facie case is only to be considered. Elaborate analysis or exhaustive exploration of the merits is not required. (See Niranjan Singh and Anr. v. Prabhakar Rajram Kharote and Ors., (1980) AIR SC 785. Where the offence is of serious nature the question of grant of bail has to be decided keeping in view the nature and seriousness of the offence, character of the evidence and amongst others the larger interest of the public. 35. In fact, it laid down the parameters, as to at the stage when the bail application is being considered, for a detailed discussion of the evidence and elaborate merit consideration of the document, has been postulated to be avoided. 35. In fact, it laid down the parameters, as to at the stage when the bail application is being considered, for a detailed discussion of the evidence and elaborate merit consideration of the document, has been postulated to be avoided. But that cannot be a situation, which could be made applicable in the present case; particularly when the counsel himself, has invited the Court, and called upon it to answer the authorities on which he wants to place reliance in support of pressing his bail application. Though being conscious of the fact that the exercise of powers under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., is discretionary in nature but then to this Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that the principles of adjudication, that if the counsel makes a reference to a judgment in support of his case, irrespective of the nature of case, being a application for bail even, thereto it is duty bound to consider, as to whether those principle would apply or not, as it has been laid down in Verman Narayan Ghiya (Supra) case. Thus this Court was bound to consider the authorities relied by the applicant's counsel for the purposes of considering its applicability, in the present case and its circumstances at the stage of consideration of bail. 36. The counsel for the applicant had further made reference to a judgment, which had been Paramvir Singh Saini vs. Baljit Singh and Ors., (2021) 1 SCC 184 which yet again, was widely based upon the principles of D.K. Basu's case of 1997 (supra); where while dealing with the impact of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, for the purposes of protection of fundamental and human rights of the citizen, where the installation of the videography system and CCTV cameras was mandated to be made essential inside the Police Station, Prison and Lockups and that is why the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said judgment, had postulated once again mandated that efforts should be made for maintenance of the CCTV cameras, which are to be installed and that of the SHO of the respective police stations and that is what has been dealt with while extracting the observations made from Shafhi Mohd.'s judgment Paramvir Singh Saini (supra) in para 5 of the said judgment, which is quoted hereunder:- "5. This Court, vide Order dated 16.07.2020, issued notice in the instant Special Leave Petition to the Ministry of Home Affairs on the question of audio-video recordings of Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure statements as is provided by Section 161(3) proviso, as well as the larger question as to installation of CCTV cameras in police stations generally. While issuing notice this Court also took note of the directions in Shafhi Mohammad (supra)." 37. The counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of this Court to para 21 and 22 of the said judgment of Paramvir Singh Saini (supra) which are quoted hereunder:- "21. The SLOC and the COB (where applicable) shall give directions to all Police Stations, investigative/enforcement agencies to prominently display at the entrance and inside the police stations/offices of investigative/enforcement agencies about the coverage of the concerned premises by CCTV. This shall be done by large posters in English, Hindi and vernacular language. In addition to the above, 22. Since these directions are in furtherance of the fundamental rights of each citizen of India guaranteed Under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and since nothing substantial has been done in this regard for a period of over 2 years since our first Order dated 03.04.2018, the Executive/Administrative/police authorities are to implement this Order both in letter and in spirit as soon as possible. Affidavits will be filed by the Principal Secretary/Cabinet Secretary/Home Secretary of each State/Union Territory giving this Court a firm action plan with exact timelines for compliance with today's Order. This is to be done within a period of six weeks from today. 38. Affidavits will be filed by the Principal Secretary/Cabinet Secretary/Home Secretary of each State/Union Territory giving this Court a firm action plan with exact timelines for compliance with today's Order. This is to be done within a period of six weeks from today. 38. In fact, once again, it is reiterated that the directives contained therein for installation or the necessity of the investigating agencies for the enforcement of the CCTV coverage of recording of the proceedings, are in the police station, from the view point of the protection of the human rights, in fact it was yet again only a directive which were given for resorting to the process of installation of the technology mechanism in the respective police stations and it was specifically not dealing with the circumstances, as it is identically involved consideration in the present case where the applicant was apprehended by the police team at Malak Chungi, Haridwar Road, near Laksar Bus Stop, but where it may not be feasibly possible to have a videography in all cases and the coverage of the seizure and recovery and particularly in the NDPS, case where the informations are received at the very fag end. 39. The counsel for the applicant had made reference, to number of other judgments for example as that Tomaso Bruno vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 7 SCC 178 and particularly he has made reference to para 26, 27 and 28 of the said judgment, which are extracted below:- "26. Production of scientific and electronic evidence in court as contemplated Under Section 65B of the Evidence Act is of great help to the investigating agency and also to the prosecution. The relevance of electronic evidence is also evident in the light of Mohd. Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 9 SCC 1 : MANU/SC/0681/2012 , wherein production of transcripts of internet transactions helped the prosecution case a great deal in proving the guilt of the accused. Similarly, in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru, (2005) 11 SCC 600 : MANU/SC/0465/2005 , the links between the slain terrorists and the masterminds of the attack were established only through phone call transcripts obtained from the mobile service providers. 27. Similarly, in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru, (2005) 11 SCC 600 : MANU/SC/0465/2005 , the links between the slain terrorists and the masterminds of the attack were established only through phone call transcripts obtained from the mobile service providers. 27. The trial court in its judgment held that non-collection of CCTV footage, incomplete site plan, non-inclusion of all records and sim details of mobile phones seized from the accused are instances of faulty investigation and the same would not affect the prosecution case. Non-production of CCTV footage, non-collection of call records (details) and sim details of mobile phones seized from the accused cannot be said to be mere instances of faulty investigation but amount to withholding of best evidence. It is not the case of the prosecution that CCTV footage could not be lifted or a CD copy could not be made. 28. As per Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act, if a party in possession of best evidence which will throw light in controversy withholds it, the court can draw an adverse inference against him notwithstanding that the onus of proving does not lie on him. The presumption Under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act is only a permissible inference and not a necessary inference. Unlike presumption Under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, where the court has no option but to draw statutory presumption, Under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, the Court has the option; the court may or may not raise presumption on the proof of certain facts. Drawing of presumption Under Section 114(g) of Evidence Act depends upon the nature of fact required to be proved and its importance in the controversy, the usual mode of proving it; the nature, quality and cogency of the evidence which has not been produced and its accessibility to the party concerned, all of which have to be taken into account. It is only when all these matters are duly considered that an adverse inference can be drawn against the party." 40. It is only when all these matters are duly considered that an adverse inference can be drawn against the party." 40. With all due reverence at my command, this Court is not in agreement for complying the said principle in the present case for the reason being that the said judgment was considering, the implications of the provisions contained under Section 114 (iii)(g) of the Evidence Act, with regards to the accessibility of the investigating agency, for the purpose of recording the CCTV footage and call records, in the light of the principle of the provisions contained under Section 65-A, 65-B and 65-E of the Evidence Act. This was a case where the person, who was being tried, was for an offence under Section 302 IPC. In that eventuality, it is always the investigation, which was or is being carried after the occurrence or after its reporting of the incident and there at the stage of investigation, the CCTV footage and the collection of the call records and mobile details, has been postulated to be made as one of an essential instruments, for arriving at a rightful conclusion, while trying a person for the aforesaid offence. This may not be an identical, example or a situation which could be applied over here, in the present case; because if the scrutiny of the para 25 of the said judgment of Tomaso Bruno and another (supra) is made where the implications of Section 65-B of the Evidence Act was under consideration it was in the light of the judgment of Mohd. Ajmal Amir Kasab vs. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 9 SCC 1 is concerned, it was yet again, on altogether a different nature, context and prospective of an offence and particularly under the circumstances of the present case, when the investigating officer was called upon by this Court, vide its proceedings which were held on 10.03.2021, there was a very candid statement which was made by the Investigating Officer, that there was no videography made of the incident and the call details reports were not available, because one year period has already lapsed. 41. 41. As already observed above, call details record in the present case would not be of much relevance for the reason being that when the present applicant was apprehended by the police team on 15.12.2019; he himself has very candidly admitted the commission of offence, admitted the fact that he was carrying a contraband, which was recovered from his possession and from his car. He admitted the fact that he used to sell the contrabanded articles to the students and recovered money on his way. Hence, in that eventuality where a fact stands admitted particularly, because of the endorsement which was made by him in the recovery memo and also on account of the statement, which was recorded by the C.O. under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and particularly that too when there is no pleading to the effect, as to what was the motive for the police authorities to falsely implicate the present applicant, and there was no apparent defect pointed out by the applicant, that at the time when the confiscated articles was taken in possession, there was any procedural flaw committed by the police party under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The non production of the videography, which was obviously not there and non production of CDR at this stage, this Court is intentionally refraining itself to make any observation with regards to its impact, on the ultimate adjudication to be made by the NDPS Court, which is to be gone into by the trial court; but that exclusively in itself cannot be taken as to be a reason for considering the bail application, particularly when it is an admitted case, the contraband recovered from the possession of the applicant was beyond the commercial quantity as per Entry 169 of the NDPS Act and hence, as per the opinion of this Court the bar of Section 37 of the Act would come into play to be made applicable. 42. 42. Another main aspect on which the learned counsel for the applicant had made reference to, is in the light of the judgment Union of India vs. Mohan Lal and others, (2012) 7 SCC 719 where the Hon'ble Apex Court was dealing with the provisions of Section 52(A), to be read with Section 8/18 (b), to be read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act, in the said judgment has specifically dealt with the procedure which was expected to be adopted for the purposes of disposal of hazardous substance which are seized by the police team, which is the contrabanded Narcotics under the Act and how it has to be disposed of in the light of the Standing Order No.1/1989 dated 13.06.1989, and yet again in the aforesaid judgment, it was simplicitor intending to create an observations made from the view point for the recording of the disposal of the recovered contraband through videography, has to be recorded in order to ensure its complete damage and destroyal in order to prohibit its recirculation amongst its probable consumers and in the society at large, and that is what has been postulated in the principles enunciated in the said judgment, as dealt with in para 20 to 25 of the judgment, (which is not being extracted hereunder for the reason being that it is not relevant under the circumstances of the present case at the stage of consideration of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.). Because recording of destroyal of the recovered contraband under Section 52 A, is a predetermined act which has been directed to be videographed in order to meet its social objective, to prevent its re-circulation amongst the consumers of the contraband, where the knowledge of the act of destroyal, is an act already known and in knowledge of the authorities. Apart from it the very foundation of the said judgment, which was dealt in para 1 and 2 of the said judgment was exclusively confined to "the disposal of the seized drugs, Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances" which is and has not been the case ever involved consideration for in the present bail application. Apart from it the very foundation of the said judgment, which was dealt in para 1 and 2 of the said judgment was exclusively confined to "the disposal of the seized drugs, Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances" which is and has not been the case ever involved consideration for in the present bail application. An identical principles had been dealt with in yet another judgment, which was relied by the counsel for the applicant Union of India vs. Jaroopa Ram, (2018) 4 SCC 334 and particularly, if we have reference of paras 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the judgment, it was almost an identical considering of the implications of Section 8 and 29 of the Act, where the disposal of bulk quantity of Narcotics, which was recovered and seized in a case was supposed to be destroyed as per the provisions of Section 52 A (referred above). 43. In fact, if the said judgment is considered, it engaged the consideration with regards to the aspects, for the disposal of the bulk quantity of the contraband, which was postulated that the disposal was expected to be made in the presence of executive Magistrate, after a due prior notice to the accused person of such destruction and this was a case where a judgment under consideration was a judgment of confession, which is not the case at hand, which would be made applicable in the circumstances of the present case at this stage of bail, where still the trial is pending consideration and no final adjudication, has yet been made after application of evidence. 44. In extension of his aforesaid argument, the learned counsel for the applicant in fact in principle wanted to contemplate and get findings recorded by this Court that when a particular legislature under, which an action is being taken, is penal in nature, it has had to be procedurally strictly construed and for the said purpose he had made a reference to a judgment reported in (2018) 2 Supreme Court Case 158 (Though under the taxing and laws) Deputy Commissioner Income Tax vs. M/S Ace Multi Axes Systems Ltd and particularly he has made reference to para 20 of the said judgment which is extracted hereunder:- "20. In State of Jharkhand versus Ambay Cements, (2005) 1 SCC 368 the question was whether exemption for newly set up industrial units was applicable to the assessee therein. In State of Jharkhand versus Ambay Cements, (2005) 1 SCC 368 the question was whether exemption for newly set up industrial units was applicable to the assessee therein. The High Court having allowed the benefit even though the assessee did not qualify for the same, this Court reversed the view of the High Court and held that the conditions for grant of exemption from tax are mandatory and in absence thereof exemption could not be granted. Distinguishing the judgments of this Court in Bajaj Tempo (supra), it was observed : "23. Mr Bharuka further submitted that in taxing statutes, provision of concessional rate of tax should be liberally construed and in respect of the above submission, he cited the judgment of this Court in CST v. Industrial Coal Enterprises, (1992) 3 SCC 78 and in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. CIT. We are unable to countenance the above submission. In our view, the provisions of exemption clause should be strictly construed and if the condition under which the exemption was granted stood changed on account of any subsequent event the exemption would not operate. 24. In our view, an exception or an exempting provision in a taxing statute should be construed strictly and it is not open to the court to ignore the conditions prescribed in the industrial policy and the exemption notifications. 25. In our view, the failure to comply with the requirements renders the writ petition filed by the respondent liable to be dismissed. While mandatory rule must be strictly observed, substantial compliance might suffice in the case of a directory rule. 26. Whenever the statute prescribes that a particular act is to be done in a particular manner and also lays down that failure to comply with the said requirement leads to severe consequences, such requirement would be mandatory. It is the cardinal rule of interpretation that where a statute provides that a particular thing should be done, it should be done in the manner prescribed and not in any other way. It is also settled rule of interpretation that where a statute is penal in character, it must be strictly construed and followed. Since the requirement, in the instant case, of obtaining prior permission is mandatory, therefore, non-compliance with the same must result in cancelling the concession made in favour of the grantee, the respondent herein." 45. It is also settled rule of interpretation that where a statute is penal in character, it must be strictly construed and followed. Since the requirement, in the instant case, of obtaining prior permission is mandatory, therefore, non-compliance with the same must result in cancelling the concession made in favour of the grantee, the respondent herein." 45. The provisions of a penalty contemplated under a Taxing Law, which is exclusively a law governing a personal field of violation of Taxing Laws, where the penalty is contemplated under the Act, would not be attracted in the light of the circumstances of the present case, where the offence complaint of against the present applicant, is a social offence which was anticipated and expected to create a menace in the society by the sale of drugs to the students, which was confessed by the applicant and hence the principles of the judgment of Deputy Commissioner Income Tax (Supra) which was based upon another judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court Bajaj Tempo Limited vs. CIT, (2005) 1 SCC 368 will not apply in the present case, because the two fields of law that is "taxing law" and the "laws of Narcotics", cannot be kept at a common pedestal, as it has been sought to be referred to by the counsel for the applicant in the light of the observations made in sub para 26 of para 20 the said judgment. 46. As far as the circumstances of the present case is concerned and as quite elaborately, this Court has already dealt with the arguments, which had been extended by the counsel for the present applicant, few apparent facts are:- i. The recovery of a contraband was beyond the prescribed commercial quantity. ii. The recovery was beyond the prescribed commercial quantity provided under serial no.169 of the Schedule, appended to the NDPS Act. iii. The seizure of the injections which were about 1000, in number was made by the Gazetted Officer under Section 50 of the Act, and in the presence of the applicant, after taking his consent by the Gazetted Officer, in the light of the provisions contained under Section 50 and he himself has endorsed the recovery memo by fortifying the fact of the recovery having being made from him and in possession; in his I20 car. iv. iv. That to, when the applicant has been taking a somersaulted stand and in distinction, of the various stages, where the bail application was being considered by the courts and particularly that to by way of supplementary affidavit which was filed by the applicant developing the case of animosity with Jahid Ali, whom the applicant alleges to be a drug peddler and since he was got arrested, on a complaint of his father, the present case has been developed against him with a malice. The case which cannot be believed at this stage, particularly as there is no material on record and it was developed by the applicant for the first time by way of supplementary affidavit before the High Court. v. Even let us for the time being presumed for the sake of argument that on the complaint of the applicant's father, Jahid Ali, the drug peddler was arrested, it cannot be ruled out that the present applicant and the other drug peddlers that is Jahid Ali and Parvej, were indulged in commercially dealing with the Narcotics and particularly in the instant case, when recovery is beyond the commercial quantity, then the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, would come into play, which is quoted 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 3 [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.]." 47. (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.]." 47. Section 37 of the NDPS Act, poses a restriction on the courts while considering the bail application in those cases where the recovery of the contraband is beyond the commercial quantity. Hence, on an over all scrutiny of the case as mentioned above, this Court extracts the implications of Sub Section (1) of Section 37 and I am of the view that this is not a fit case in which the bail could be granted. Consequently, the bail application stands rejected.