JUDGMENT :

Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.

1. This is a regular bail application filed by the accused in FIR No.39/2016 under Section 20/29 of NDPS Act, 1985 registered at PS Special Cell.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 25.06.2016. Learned counsel submits that the matter is still pending trial and it may take a long time for its final dispossal. Learned counsel submits that the co-accused namely Jeewan Mondal has been granted bail by a coordinate bench of this court in Bail Appln.3925/2020 vide order dated 04.01.2023. It has further been submitted that another co-accused namely Mohd.Hafiz has also been granted bail by the learned trial court vide order dated 13.01.2023. Learned counsel submits that co-accused Jeewan Mondal and Mohd. Hafiz have been granted bail by coordinate bench of this court and by the learned trial court on the ground of period in judicial custody. Learned counsel submits that the bail of the present petitioner has also been sought only on the ground that the petitioner has been in custody for more than six years.

3. A coordinate bench of this Court in Jeewan Mondal vs. State NCT of Delhi, Bail Appln.3925/2020 vide order dated 04.01.2023 has inter alia held as under :

“9. What can be culled out and is evident from these decisions listed above is that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has in 1994 in Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee (supra) enunciated certain principles/directives which inter alia provide that if an undertrial is charged for an offence under the NDPS Act punishable and the trial is delayed and the accused has already undergone almost half of the sentence prescribed (or the minimum if there is a range provided) then he should be entitled for being released on bail subject to conditions. Directive (iii), for example, provides that where minimum imprisonment of ten years and a minimum fine of Rupees one lakh is prescribed, such an undertrial shall be released on bail if he has been in jail for not less than five years on the condition that he furnishes bail in the sum of Rupees one lakh with two sureties for like amount. This principle is further buttressed by another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (supra) where it was held dealing with cases of category “C” (Special Acts) that provisions contained in Sections 436A Cr.P.C. would apply to Special Acts as well in the absence of any specific provision. It was specifically stated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that “the rigor as provided under section 37 NDPS Act would not come in the way in such a case as we are dealing with the liberty of a person”. The jurisprudential crux of this principle being enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is that “bail is the rule and jail is an exception” that there is a principle of presumption of innocence and the core intendment being Article 21 of the Constitution of India which guarantees right to personal liberty and right to speedy trial. In this context, the decisions in Kishan Lal (supra) of the Hon’ble Supreme Court would not have relevance since the principles enunciated in Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee (supra) and endorsed in Satender Kumar Antil (supra) would hold ground. These principles have been followed inter alia by this Court in Anil Kumar v. State (supra), Sarvan Kumar v. State (supra), Ejike Jonas Orji v. Narcotics Control Bureau (supra).

10. Adverting now to the decision by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohit Aggarwal (supra) where it was held that that the length of custody in itself cannot be a persuasive ground for relief under Section 37 NDPS Act. It is noticed on a reading of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohit Aggarwal (supra) that the facts in the case involved an extremely huge amount of 6.64 lakhs tablets of different psychotropic substances including Tramadol weighing around 328.82 kg and other psychotropic substances and the accused had remained in custody for a period of 1 year 3 months. It is evident