The main legal point established in the judgment is that bail may be granted when there is insufficient evidence connecting the accused with the crime, and considering the duration of custody.

JUDGMENT

Vijay Bishnoi, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

2. The petitioner has been arrested in FIR No. DRI/UZU/JRU/19/INI-4/16 lodged at the Directorate of Revenue Enforcement (Sessions Case No. 192/2017) for the offences punishable under Section 22, 23, 25, 25(A), 27(A), 29 of the NDPS Act and Section 2, 8(C), 8(A), 9(A) and Rule 53, 64, 65(A), 66 and 67 of the NDPS Act. He has preferred this third bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after rejection of the second bail application of the petitioner on 23.09.2019, co-accused namely Anil, Gunjan Dudhani and Parmeshwar have already been enlarged on bail. It is further argued that except the statement of the petitioner recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, no other evidence is available on record to connect him with the recovery of the narcotic contraband in this case. It is also submitted that case of the petitioner stands on a better footing than that of other co-accused persons who have been enlarged on bail.

4. It is argued that petitioner is the owner of M/s. Redimix Adhesion Technology and his factory is situated at Nadiad in Gujarat and in the aforesaid factory, the petitioner is manufacturing adhesive material and sell the same in the name of same brands.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the prosecution story, the petitioner used to send narcotic contraband along with the adhesive material to the foreign countries. It is argued that the prosecution has failed to collect any evidence to conclude that the petitioner has ever exported narcotic contraband along with the products manufacturing in his factory and except the statement of the petitioner recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, no other material is available on to connect him with the commission of crime. Learned counsel for the petitioner also argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2021) 4 SCC 1 has clearly held that statement of the accused recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be the sole basis for his conviction.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 19.02.2017 and, as such, he is in jail from last more than 5 years. It is also submitted that though the prosecution has produced list of 96 prosecution witnesses and out of them, only 19 prosecution witnesses have been examined by the trial court till date. It is submitted that from the above fact, it is clear that trial against the petitioner is likely to take time, therefore, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent - Union of India has opposed the bail application and submitted that the petitioner being the owner of M/s. Redimix Adhesion Technology was indulged in exporting narcotic contraband to the foreign countries, in the garb of adhesive material, which was provided to him by the main accused namely Shubhash Dudhani, who is now dead. Learned counsel for the respondent has also submitted that the prosecution has waived the evidence of 46 witnesses and proposed to produce only 50 prosecution witnesses, out of which, 25 witnesses have already been examined. Learned counsel for the respondent has, therefore, submitted that in the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

9. Though, the prosecution has alleged that the petitioner was exporting the narcotic contraband supplied to him by the main accused namely Shubhash Dudhani, now dead, in the grab of adhesive material, however, except his statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has failed to point out any other clinching evidence, on the basis of which, it can be concluded that the petitioner was involved in