The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Supreme Court's principles for granting bail in cases involving delayed trials and prolonged incarceration, especially in NDPS Act offences.

JUDGMENT

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J. (Oral)--The present application under Section 439 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C.') has been filed by the applicant seeking regular bail in case FIR bearing no. 25/2016, registered at Police Station (PS) Special Cell, Delhi for the offences punishable under Sections 18/29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (`NDPS Act').

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that on an information received by the Special Cell, Northern Range, the mobile numbers 8493733249, 8726284545, 8415016400, 970665247 and some other numbers were kept under legal interception on specific information being received on 15.05.2016 through secret sources. Four accused persons were apprehended which resulted into recovery of 69 kg of high quality opium which is commercial quantity. During investigation, it surfaced that out of the said recovered contraband, 15 kg was to be specifically supplied to present accused/applicant Ishrar Ahmad, who is also one of the key members of inter-state drug cartel, who receives and purchases large quantity of drugs from the supplier members of the cartel and thereafter distributes the same on huge monetary gain. The applicant Ishrar Ahmad was arrested on 17.05.2016 when he had come to Delhi to receive the consignment of opium. The mobile number used by Ishrar Ahmad was 8756347097. During further investigation, the intercepted conversation was analysed and it was found that there were several calls between the present applicant and main supplier Nazir Hussain @ Nizam from mobile number 8415016400. It is also stated that the intercepted conversation revealed that present accused was demanding contraband from co-accused Nazir Hussain and was also discussing payments against the same. The intercepted calls and voice samples of applicant Ishrar Ahmad were got examined at FSL where the FSL report revealed that the voice samples matched with the intercepted conversation voice of the applicant. It was also revealed that huge suspicious transaction of more than Rs.3 crores were found within two years from 2014 to 2016 in the bank account of co-accused Nazir Hussain and many times cash was deposed from Sahajahanpur, U.P. which is the place of residence of the present accused applicant and co-accused from where they were arrested.

3. Learned senior counsel for present accused/applicant argues that the applicant has been in judicial custody for 06 years 09 months and therefore, is covered by the guidelines laid down in para 15(iii) of decision in Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee (Representing Undertrial Prisoners) v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 731. It is also argued that the applicant was not named in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is stated that nothing has been recovered from the applicant and he is not the main supplier of the contraband. It is also argued that except for the disclosure statement which is inadmissible in law, there is nothing on record against the applicant, and reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2020) SCC Online SC 882. It is also stated that present accused/applicant retracted his statement under Section 67 NDPS Act before the learned Trial Court. It is further stated that it will take long to conclude the trial, and therefore, bail be granted to the applicant.

4. Per contra, learned APP for the State argues that the CDR and the FSL report are clearly indicative of the accused being involved in the present offence. It is also stated that the learned Trial Court may be directed to expedite the trial, however, the bail be rejected since there is every reason to believe that the accused is involved in the present case.

5. This Court has heard arguments addressed by both the sides and have gone through the case file.

6. In the case at hand, the present accused/applicant has been arrested on the basis