Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Dr. Sujay Kantawala a/w Mr. Karan Jain i/b Mr. Agastya Desai
For the Respondent: Ms. Thakker Ruju (through VC) a/w Ms Priyanshi Doshi, Mr. C. D. Mali

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the bail application and the court's findings:

1. Application for Bail * The applicant, Accused No.2, filed a bail application under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC) after being in custody since August 9, 2021, with no trial progress (!) . * The applicant sought bail on the grounds of prolonged detention without trial, citing a lack of corroborative evidence beyond statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act (!) (!) .

2. Facts of the Case * The case involves the seizure of 191.60 kgs of heroin from a container during a raid at Navkar Corporation (!) . * Accused No.1, the primary agent present during the search, recorded a statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act implicating Accused No.2 (!) . * Accused No.2's involvement is primarily based on this Section 67 statement, call details records (CDR/SDR), and WhatsApp messages forwarding clearance documents (!) (!) (!) . * Accused No.4, another key accused, expired after the complaint was filed (!) .

3. Legal Arguments and Evidence Analysis * Inadmissibility of Section 67 Statements: The court held that statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as confessions against the accused because the officers recording them are considered police officers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act, making such statements inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act (!) . * Lack of Corroborative Evidence: Apart from the inadmissible Section 67 statements, the only material against the applicant was call details and document exchanges. The court reasoned that as a Clearing Agent, exchanging documents and making calls for business purposes is natural and does not prove knowledge of drugs concealed within the consignment (!) (!) (!) (!) . * Commercial Quantity vs. Evidence: Although a commercial quantity of heroin was seized, the court noted that without admissible confessional evidence or other corroboration, the statutory restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not act as an absolute embargo (!) .

4. Right to Speedy Trial and Bail Grant * Prolonged Detention: The applicant has been in custody for three years with absolutely no progress in the trial (54 witnesses disclosed but none examined) (!) (!) (!) . * Fundamental Rights: The court emphasized that long incarceration violates the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India (!) (!) . * Precedents: The court relied on recent Supreme Court judgments (Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh, Ankur Chaudhary, Dheeraj Kumar Shukla, Mohd. Muslim alias Hussain) which hold that inordinate delay and lack of trial progress override statutory restrictions on bail (!) (!) (!) (!) . * Decision: The bail application was allowed, granting the applicant release on strict conditions including a personal bond of Rs. 1 Lakh, surrender of passport, and prohibition on leaving India or tampering with witnesses (!) (!) .