The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution takes precedence over statutory restrictions on bail, especially when the accused has been in custody for an unreasonable period.

ORDER :

(KULDEEP MATHUR, J.)

This second application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (483 BNSS) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.202/2020, registered at Police Station Jamsar, District Bikaner, for offences under Sections 8/22 and 29 of NDPS Act.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the co-accused- Bhagwant Singh (S.B. Criminal Misc. 2^nd Bail Application No.16000/2024) has already been enlarged on bail by the co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.02.2025. Learned counsel submitted that the case of the present petitioner is not at all distinguishable from that of the co-accused- Bhagwant Singh who has already been enlarged on bail.

3. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 17.12.2020 and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application. However, he was not in a position to refute the fact that the co-accused – Bhagwant Singh has already been enlarged on bail.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar. Perused the material available on record.

6. The order dated 03.02.2025 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court while enlarging the co-accused- Bhagwant Singh is reproduce hereinbelow for ready reference:-

“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. The concise facts of the case as alleged in the FIR are that the SHO PS Jamsar along with his team intercepted a Honda City Car bearing registration No.DL-3C-AK-4181 and upon search being made, petitioner alongwith one Avatar Singh were found sitting therein and 810 strips of 8100 Tramadol Hydrochloride 100 Mg SR Tablets were recovered from their possession. The weight of the medicinal drug was 2.430 Kg. His first bail application being SBCRLMB No.3405/2024 was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 24.04.2024 with liberty to renew the prayer for bail after recording the statement of Seizing Officer but he has not examined yet. Hence, the instant bail application.

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. He submits that the contraband was recovered on 17.12.2020 and he has been behind bars since a very long period and the trial is progressing at a very slow pace. 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.

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 heard and considered the submissions made by both the parties and perused the material available on record.

6. Perusal of the record revealing that the seizing officer, after arresting the accused, has failed to appear before the trial Court for recording his statement for an unreasonable period of four (4) years. Such prolonged absence of the seizing officer is wholly unjustified and demonstrates gross negligence in discharging his official duties, thereby causing an undue and unreasonable delay in the trial proceedings. The failure of the prosecution to secure the presence of the seizing officer for such a long period has severely prejudiced the rights of the accus