The main legal point established is the consideration of the period of custody undergone, the delay in trial, and the deprivation of personal liberty without an assurance of speedy trial as antithetical to Article 21 of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”) is filed seeking regular bail in S.C. No. 7396/2016 titled as “Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Paramjit Singh Gulati & Anr.”.

BRIEF FACTS

2. On an intelligence in relation to drug trafficking by concealment in export consignments, an examination was conducted which found eight corrugated boxes in three pallets. A white crystal powder weighing 151.80 kgs., was seized under the NDPS act.

3. Consequent to the recovery, search was conducted at the premises of the alleged syndicate on 19.07.2012 and a statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS act. Various other statements were recorded and the petitioner was arrested on 20.07.2012. Chargesheet has already been filed and the charges were, thereafter, framed on 05.11.2014.

4. The first regular bail application filed before the learned trial court was dismissed by an order dated 08.05.2019. The bail application, subsequently, filed before this Court was also dismissed by an order dated 02.03.2020. The petitioner was, thereafter, stated to have been granted interim bails on number of occasions, and it is submitted that the liberty was never misused.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the co-accused who has been shown to be having the similar role has been granted bail by this Court by an order dated 21.12.2021. He submits that the present application has been filed because of the changed circumstances and the petitioner is entitled for the grant of bail on the ground of parity.

6. Learned counsel relies upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee (Representing Undertrial Prisoners) v. Union of India; (1994) 6 SCC 731, in support of his contention, that in case an under-trial accused is charged with an offence under the Act punishable with minimum imprisonment of 10 years, such an under trial shall be released on bail if he has been in jail for not less than five years. He submits that in the present case, the applicant is in custody for almost 10 years and is entitled for bail, applying the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. He further submits that the coordinate benches of this Court in Atul Aggarwal v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (2021) SCC Online DEL 5489, Anil Kumar @ Nillu v. State in BAIL APPLN. 1724/2021 and Ebera Nwanaforo and Frank Vitus v. Narcotics Control Bureau in BAIL APPLN. 3705/2020 and BAIL APPLN. 4187/2020, have granted bails to the under trial accused, who have spent more than five years in incarceration.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the grant of bail to the applicant. He submits that the allegations are grave and serious and the application filed on earlier occasion has already been dismissed by this court.

8. He further submits that the applicant cannot be granted bail on the ground of parity. The role of the co-accused, Atul Aggarwal, who was granted bail by this Court, is not similar. He submits that the applicant is also involved in two more cases under the NDPS act.

REASONING

9. It is significant to note that the application filed by the applicant on an earlier occasion was dismissed by this Court without taking note of the verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee (supra). Pursuant to the dismissal of the application by the High Court, this Court by the order dated 21.12.2021, has already granted bail to the co-accused.

10. In the order passed by this Court granting bail to the coaccused, this Court had specifically noted that even though the grant of bail in cases where the commercial quantity is found from the accused, are governed by the provisions of Section 37 of the Act, still the period of custody undergone cannot be overlooked. This Court relied upon the observations made by the Supreme Court in Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee (supra) granted bail to the co-accused.

11. This Court is conscious of the fact