The court granted bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. due to lack of specific allegations against the accused and the lengthy trial ahead, emphasizing the need for substantial evidence for incarceration.

Order :

1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing an 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 Deputy Government Advocate 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 both the parties and have perused the material available on record.

5. The petitioner is incarcerated in this case since 27.02.2024 for having indulgence in commission of crime of making an attempt to embezzle opium poppy juice from the opium bulb. The co-accused Shankar Lal has been granted bail, thought the main contention was of his being a septuagenarian.

6. In this case, as a matter of fact, nothing has been recovered from the accused petitioner, since before taking away the coagulated juice of the opium bulb, the respondent Agency had raided the spot and took away the material in their possession. Indeed there was an attempt to make pilferage of the opium poppy juice before handing over the contraband to the Narcotic authorities, for which they were obligated to deposit.

7. The grand father of the petitioner, Shankar Lal, has been issued a license to cultivate opium and when the poppy flower grew up in the shape of bulb and the outer layer filled with poppy juice, an attempt was made to make incision over the bulb so as to steal the poppy juice. However, the attempt could not be materialized.

8. The allegations are of general nature sans any specific attribution of role of the petitioner. The co-accused Shankarlal has already been granted bail on 11.11.2024 passed by this Court in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II^nd Bail Application No. 6051/2024.

9. Till now, only two witnesses have been examined out of 7 witnesses. More than two years and half months have elapsed still the trial would likely to take a long time. The fetter contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act has also been considered, and this Court feels that no material has been brought on record to infer that the release of the petitioner would lead to his involvement in similar activities again. There is high probability that the trial may take long time to conclude. In light of these facts and circumstances, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner in the present matter.

10. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C . is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner as named in the cause title shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.