Prolonged incarceration does not automatically justify bail if the applicant poses a flight risk and the trial is nearing completion.

ORDER :

(M. R. MENGDEY, J.)

1. The applicant has filed this Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for enlarging the applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.III/90/2019 registered with D.C.B. Police Station, Ahmedabad City District:Ahmedabad City for the offences punishable under Sections 8(C), 20(B) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Aniq Qadri appearing for the applicant and learned APP Mr.Krutik Parikh for the Respondent – State.

3. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the present offence came to be registered against the present applicant on 16.11.2019 and the applicant came to be arrested for the said offence on 16.11.2019 itself. Thereafter, the investigation of the offence got over and charge-sheet came to be filed. The present applicant has undergone incarceration for almost five years. However, there is no progress in the trial.

3.1 He submitted that the other co-accused namely Mohammad Firoz alias Chor Mohammad Hanif Sheikh had approached this court for grant of regular bail. However, the said application of the co-accused came to be dismissed by order dated 14.6.2024. Thereafter, the co-accused had approached the Hon’ble Apex Court against the order of this court and the Hon’ble Apex Court vide its order dated 19.4.2024 had been pleased to consider the case of the co-accused for grant of bail, only on the ground of prolonged incarceration and delay in trial. He submitted that entire offence had been committed at the hands of the co-accused Mohammad Firoz alias Chor Mohammad Hanif Sheikh as per the case of prosecution itself, who has been considered for grant of bail. He, therefore, submitted to allow the present application and enlarge the present applicant on bail subject to suitable conditions.

4. The application is opposed by learned APP contending that the applicant was found in conscious possession of contraband substance of Mephedrone worth 305 grams and Cocaine worth 51 grams. The present applicant had also absconded when he was lastly considered for grant of temporary bail by this court. He therefore submitted to dismiss the present application.

5. This Court has considered the submissions canvassed by learned advocates for the parties and has also perused the material placed on record. This court vide order dated 28.2.2025 had asked learned Trial Court to submit its report as regards the current status of trial since it was contended by learned advocate for the applicant that the applicant was arrested with connection of the present offence in the year 2019 and then there is no progress in the trial. Accordingly, learned trial court has submitted its report as regards the current status of trial which indicates that there are 27 witnesses cited by the prosecution in the charge-sheet and out of it, 21 witnesses have already been examined. Thus, the trial of the offence appears to be on the verge of completion and now only 6 witnesses are yet to be examined.

5.1 From the record it also appears that after his arrest, the present applicant came to be considered for grant of temporary bail by this court and while being on temporary bail, the present applicant had absconded for a period of 288 days and had not remained present before the concerned trial court.

5.2 So far as the aspect of merits is concerned, it is the case of prosecution that the applicant was caught red handed with conscious possession of contraband substance of Mephedrone worth 305 grams and Cocaine worth 51 grams.

6. Considering all these aspects, no case is made out to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant. Accordingly, the present Application is dismissed.