ORDER :

1. This Court perused the material available on record.

2. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.93/2020 of Police Station Sadar, Hanumangarh for the offence punishable under Section 8/22 of NDPS Act. He has preferred this second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has shown to this Court the order dated 07.12.2023 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No.12766/2023 whereby this Hon’ble Court had granted bail to co-accused Gurvindra Singh. The order dated 07.12.2023 reads as follows:

“This second application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.93/2020 registered at Police Station Hanumangarh Sadar, District Hanumangarh, for offence under Section 8/22 of the NDPS Act.

As per the prosecution, during routine patrolling, police team of Police Station Hanumangarh Sadar, District Hanumangarh, on 22.03.2020, recovered 560 capsules of Tramadol Hydrochloride weighing 361.2 gms. from conscious possession of the present petitioner and co-accused Manpreet Singh. The petitioner was arrested on the spot.

Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 22.03.2020. It was also submitted that trial against the petitioner has commenced but in last more than 3 years and 8 months, out of total 22 cited prosecution witnesses, only 2 witnesses have been examined till date. Learned counsel submitted that the delay in trial before the competent criminal court is not at all attributable to the present petitioner.

Learned counsel submitted that in view of the fact that the petitioner is in custody for last more than 3 years and 8 months and the delay in trial is not attributable to him, he deserves to be enlarged on bail.

In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance on the order dated 13.07.2023 passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Rabi Prakash vs. The State of Odisha (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.4169/2023), wherein Hon’ble the Supreme Court held as under:-

“3. We are informed that the trial has commenced but only 1 out of the 19 witnesses has been examined. The conclusion of trial will, thus, take some more time.

4. As regard to the twin conditions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, learned counsel for the respondent – State has been duly heard. Thus, the 1st condition stands complied with. So far as the 2nd condition re: formation of opinion as to whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is not guilty, the same may not be formed at this stage when he has already spent more than three and a half years in custody. The prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act.”

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that petitioner is facing trial for the offences under the NDPS Act and, therefore, the present bail application deserves to be rejected straightway. Learned Public Prosecutor, however, was not in position to refute the fact that in last 3 years and 8 months, out of total 22 cited prosecution witnesses, only 2 witnesses have been examined till date.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in (2021) 3 SCC 713, while dealing with the cases where fetters are placed on Court’s power to grant bail and the trial has not been completed within a reasonable time, observed as under:

“17. It is thus clear to us that the presence of statutory restrictions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA per se does not oust the ability of the constitutional courts t