An accused's right to a speedy trial is paramount, and prolonged incarceration without trial infringes upon fundamental rights.

ORDER :

1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing the instant second 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. 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.

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

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

5. Though the first bail application of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 08.11.2023 passed in SBCRLMB No.14257/2023 but the petitioner has filed instant second bail application because after rejecting the earlier b bail application not a single witness has been examined by the prosecution. Thus, looking to the snail pace progress of the trial, he has again approach this Court for protecting his liberty.

6. Now, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is behind the bar in this case since 18.03.2021. The case of the prosecution is that upon receiving secret information Shri Shiv Narayan, Jr. officer of NCB, Jodhpur along with his team reached on 17.03.2021, at the Aashirwad Hotel & Family Restaurant and intercepted a Maruti Swift Car bearing registration No.RJ06 CD2546 wherein driver Sanwarmal and one Dhanpal were found sitting therein. Upon search being made, 4 plastic bags containing 4 Kg 380 gms opium came to be recovered from the Mudguards of the vehicle in question. On the basis of the above, accused Sanwarmal and Dhanpal were arrested and after usual investigation a case for the offence under Sections 8/18, 8/25 of the NDPS Act got registered against them. 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. All the relevant witnesses did not turn up diligently before the trial court so that culmination of trial can be done. The petitioner is lying behind the bars for the sole reason that witness is not appearing before the trial Court in that situation the detention of an accused would be justifiable is a serious question to ponder. Here, in the present case, warrant of arrest were issued against the witnesses for the purpose of recording their statements before the trial Court but they did not turn up. It may be assumed that the witnesses are not paying attention towards the warrant of arrest issued by the Court and are not having any respect for it and on the other hand, it can be presumed that they are not interested for recording their statements. Summoning of witness on number of occasions by a Sessions Judge and in a brazen defiance in not turning up and not honoring the Court process reflects obnoxious and contumacious behavior of the witness concerned.

7. Now, coming to the next question that whether due to obnoxious or contumacious behavior of a witness, incarceration of an accused can be prolonged for no fault of him. It would be worthwhile to mention here that the application for bail moved on behalf of the accused was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 08.11.2023 while giving him liberty to renew the prayer after c