The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21, which can override statutory restrictions on bail.

Order :

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

2. The previous application being S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.14858/2024 came to be dismissed as not pressed by this Court vide order dated 17.12.2024. Hence, the instant bail application.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 01.10.2020, SHO PS Chanderia along with his team during nakabandi tried to intercept a Duster car bearing registration number RJ-27-CD-6680 but upon seeing police party, driver along with one other person escape their good by lying the vehicle in an abandoned condition. Some of the officials, claimed that the said vehicle was being driven by Mohan Lal @ Shambhoo Lal. Upon search, 10 sack bags (Weighing 234 Kg.) of poppy husk were recovered. Consequently, an FIR No.265/2020 was registered at Police Station Chanderia under Sections 8/15 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner was arrested on 10.05.2021 and charge sheeted. The petitioner had previously moved a bail application, which was dismissed as not pressed by this Court vide order dated 17.12.2024.

4. 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. He further submits that the accused was taken into custody on 10.05.2021 and since then he is behind the bars. He further submits that nothing has been recovered or discovered from him. Now, after his arrest, around three years have elapsed but the trial is not going to be culminated and still it seems that a further long time shall be taken in conclusion of the same, thus, he may be enlarged on bail.

5. 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.

6. I have heard and considered the submissions made by both the parties and perused the challan papers and the other material available on record.

7. Though the fifth bail application of the petitioner was rejected by this Court vide order dated 17.12.2024 passed in SBCRLMB No.14858/2024 but the petitioner has filed instant bail application because out of total 22 witnesses, 9 witnesses have been examined in the trial till date. Besides the delay in trial, the petitioner has an arguable case in respect of non-compliance of the mandatory provisions and flouting of the Standing Orders 1/1989 issued by the Central Govt. with regard to seizure, sampling of the contraband and in my view, if the same would be adjudicated in favour of the petitioner, he may get acquittal. Of course, there is a fetter under Section 37 of the NDPS Act regarding grant of bail to an accused having illegal possession of commercial quantity of contraband but a fundamental right of speedy trial to him cannot be permitted to be flouted. When there appears conflict between the statutory provision and the fundamental right then this Court is of the view that a protection of fundamental right should be given preference over the statutory bar in granting bail. If other surrounding factors align in consonance with the statutory stipulations, the personal liberty of an individual can not encroached upon by keeping him behind the bars for an indefinite period of time pending trial.

8. While keeping an accused detained, the opportunity to the prosecutor to lead evidence can only be given for a reasonable period. The wide