IMPORTANT POINT
The right to a speedy trial is fundamental, and prolonged detention without trial infringes upon this right, warranting bail.

ORDER :

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

2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that on 12.05.2022 at 05.40 p.m. Mr. Motaram, SI, Officiating SHO, Police Station Suratgarh with his team intercepted a Swift car on the road going from Manaksar to Vijaynagar near DPS School. In the said car bearing registration No. RJ-44-CA-0416 two persons, namely, Allarakha and Salim Khan were sitting. On search being conducted, 18 grams smack and 2000 number of Tramadol HCE SR 100 mg TMD-100 SR having weight 642 grams were recovered from their possession, upon which the accused were arrested and after usual investigation, a charge-sheet for the offences under Section 8/21, 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act was submitted against them.

3. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his incarceration is not warranted. 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. There is gross negligence on part of the investigating agency and the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been followed during investigation. The trial is going on at a snail's pace as out of 24 witnesses, only 2 have been examined so far. The petitioner is languishing in jail for last 2 years and 7 months and the trial is likely to take a lot of time. Hence, it is prayed that the petitioner may be released on bail.

4. 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.

5. I have considered the submissions made by the parties and have perused the material available on record.

6. Perusal of the record revealing that the petitioner is behind the bar for last more than 2 years and 7 months and out of total 24 witnesses, only 2 witnesses have been examined in the trial till date, thus, looking to the snail's pace progress of the trial, he has again approached this Court for protecting his liberty.

7. Now it is not in dispute that the petitioner is behind the bar in this case since long. It is a case of the prosecution that petitioner was apprehended in connection with the recovery of huge quantity of Tramadol tablets and smack. The charge-sheet has been filed way back and the trial has also been commenced long ago but no endeavours have been made to conclude it.

8. It is a firm view of this Court that an under trial prisoner cannot be incarcerated for an indefinite period. Only a reasonable time can be granted to the prosecution to prove its case and at the same time, the accused cannot be left languishing in jail for want of evidence against him as he required to be presumed innocent until the guilt is proven.

9. Normally, trial of a sessions case is completed within a period of one year from its commencement, however, for some unavoidable and inevitable circumstances, the period can be extended but keeping the accused detained in jail for more than three years for the purpose of production of evidence is detrimental to the interest of accused detained in jail.

10. This Court has made an elaborate discussion with regard to bail of an under trial accused on the ground of delay in culmination of the trial. This Court feels that if the accused is under detention, it is obl