JUDGMENT

Leave granted.

2. The impugned order is one by which the application for bail filed by the appellant has been rejected.

3. The appellant has been charged for alleged commission of offences under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The appellant has been in custody for two years and 11 months. The impugned order is the order passed in the second bail application. The earlier bail application came to be rejected on 07.07.2022. It is, in fact, pointed out by the learned counsel for the State that another attempt at securing bail from the High Court has failed.

4. As far as the impugned order goes, we notice that the following is the reasoning:

“Taking into account that the co-accused, who has since been released on bail has not surrendered, this Court is constrained not to entertain the bail application of the petitioner.”

5. Thereafter the Court proceeded to note the case of the appellant that his father has undergone surgery and the Court proceeded to direct expeditious disposal of the case.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned counsel for the State as noted.

7. The impugned order shows that what