IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that prolonged detention without sufficient evidence violates personal liberty, and bail should be granted if the prosecution fails to demonstrate a direct connection to the alleged crime.

ORDER :

1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing the instant second bail application under Section 439 CrPC at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

2. Mr. Vishal Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently and fervently contended that petitioner has unnecessarily been dragged in this case rather, his arrest is not required as he has nothing to do either with the accused or with the contraband allegedly recovered from the accused Anil Sen, who was in the car bearing registration No.RJ25 CA2711 in which allegedly 155 Kg 490 grams poppy husk came to be recovered. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused-petitioner and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.

3. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.

4. Heard and considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record.

5. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner was not accompanying the principal accused and he was not in the car mentioned above rather it is alleged that when the team of NCB intercepted a Car bearing registration No.RJ25 CA 2711, which was allegedly being driven by one Anil Sen and when the search and seizure process of Car No.RJ25 CA2711 was underway and the accused Anil Sen was with the officers of the NCB during that period one another Car bearing registration No.RJ19 UC5865 passed through the road. It is alleged that the another car hit the Govt. jeep and fled away from the spot. As per Shri Sharma, there is no direct connectivity between the petitioner and Anil Sen through any mode and in fact his vehicle passed through that road after a considerable interval. Shri Vishal Sharma, learned counsel vehemently urged that simply because the Govt. jeep hit by a car which was being driven by the petitioner cannot be a solid presumption to hold that he was having any connectivity with Anil Sen and his car. He might have fled away from the spot for the reason that accidentally his car had a small bump with the Govt. vehicle, and afraid of which he may have tried to flee from the spot.

6. I have pondered over the submissions made at the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner and minutely gone through the record of the case.

7. The petitioner is behind the bars since 19.05.2022. It is an admitted fact situation that nothing incriminating is recovered from the petitioner and the prosecution has failed to establish a direct nexus between the petitioner and the principal accused Anil Sen who was caught by the NCB Team for having possession of contraband. The first bail application of the petitioner got dismissed when the matter was at its nascent stage but now around two and half years have elapsed and still prosecution has not produced any material on record to show direct connectivity of the petitioner either with the contraband or so also with the accused. Whether in the given facts a person can be detained in custody for two or more years only for want of evidence against him is a serious question to be adjudicated by this Court. Whether the interrogation note alone sans any material evidence and legally admissible evidence can be made basis for an indefinite incarceration is a further question which is considered by this Court and lastly, whether the circumstance mentioned above are sufficient enough to put an embargo upon this Court in granting bail