JUDGMENT & ORDER :

Heard Shri A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner, namely, Aminul Islam, who has filed this application under Section 439 CrPC seeking regular bail in connection with NDPS Case No. 60/2019 arising out of NCB Crime No. 03/2019 registered under Section 8(c) and punishable under Sections 21(c)/22(c)/29 of NDPS Act, 1985. Also heard Shri SC Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, NCB.

2. At the outset, this Court has been informed that on earlier two occasions, the prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected by this Court. At the time of filing of the present petition, it was revealed that the Final Report was already filed. Subsequently, it has also been informed that a supplementary complaint under Section 173(8) of the CrPC read with Section 63A of the NDPS Act, 1985 was also filed on 09.03.2021.

3. The petitioner was arrested on 06.10.2020. In paragraph 12 of the petition, it has been admitted that the petitioner was already in custody in connection with Chapar PS Case No. 367/2020 under Section 22(b) of the NDPS Act.

4. In terms of the order passed earlier, the scanned copy of the case records has been transmitted to this Court. The learned Standing Counsel, NCB has also produced a copy of the Supplementary Complaint.

5. In the earlier bail applications, the following submissions were made on behalf of the petitioner.

i. The petitioner is not an FIR named accused and the FIR is primarily against Mograb Ali, Jiaur Rahman and Abdul Motleb Mir.

ii. The name of the petitioner was inserted as accused no. 6 only in the time of final complaint by the NCB.

iii. No contraband was seized from the petitioner or from his conscious possession.

iv. The petitioner has been arrested only on the basis of the statements made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act by co-accused Mograb Ali, Nurezzaman Islam and Gopal Sarkar.

v. Co-accused Nurezzaman was enlarged on bail and therefore, on the ground of parity, the petitioner should also be released on bail.

vi. The petitioner had been in custody for about one year and six months and therefore, there is no requirement of any further custodial detention.

6. Without going into the issue as to whether the same grounds could be urged in a subsequent petition for bail even after rejection of the prayer on earlier occasions on the same grounds, Shri Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner apart from reiterating the said grounds had also urged the following additional grounds. Further, the ground of length of custodial detention has also been modified.

i. The petitioner had valid drug license and at the time of commission of the offence/lodging of the Information i.e. 28.02.2019. The license was valid till 15.02.2019 when the same was suspended.

ii. The length of custodial detention has increased to about 2 years and 6 months.

iii. The trial is not progressing.

iv. Though the petitioner was arrested on the basis of statements made by a co-accused Mograb Ali and Gopal Sarkar, no such allegation has been found in the statement by Mograb Ali.

7. In support his submissions, the learned counsel has placed reliance upon the following case laws / orders –

i. Order dated 07.02.2020 in Crl.App. No. 245/2020 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court (Chitta Biswas @ Subhas Vs. State of West Bengal).

ii. Order dated 01.08.2022 in SLP(Crl.) No. 5769/2022 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court (Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan Vs. State of West Bengal).

iii. Order dated 05.08.2022 in Crl.App. No. 1169/2022 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court (Gopal Krishna Patra @ Gopalrusma Vs. Union of India)

iv. Order dated 22.08.2022 in SLP(Crl.) No. 5530/2022 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court (Mohammad Salman Hanif Shaikh Vs. State of Gujarat).

v. Order dated 28.03.2023 in SLP(Crl.) No. 915/2023 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court (Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State, NCT of Delhi).

8. In the case of Chitta Biswas (Supra), bail has been granted on the ground that the appellan