The right to a speedy trial is fundamental, and prolonged detention without trial violates constitutional guarantees, necessitating bail even in serious cases.

ORDER :

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

2. In short the facts of the case are that on 09.02.2022, SHO, Police Station Jetsar along with his team while patrolling intercepted a Motorcycle being registration No.RJ-13-SY-4877, which was being driven by Kuldeep Kumar and Vikash Kumar was the pillion rider. During search, a plastic bag containing medicinal drug (Tramadol Hydrochloride sustained release tablets IP 100 mg TEERCARE-SR ) in 94 boxes each containing 20 strips of 10 tablets each (In all 18800 strips weighing 5.188 Kg) got recovered. Upon interrogation, it was revealed that the said medicinal drug was purchased by them from one Raju Juriya R/o Suratgarh. After search and seizure, the samples were taken, sealed and sent to the FSL for its chemical examination. The accused were arrested and a case under the NDPS Act got registered. The first bail applications of petitioners Kuldeep Kumar and Vikash Kumar came to be dismissed as not pressed by this Court vide orders 16.04.2024 & 02.05.2024 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.4209/2024 & 5167/2024 and a liberty was given to the petitioners to renew the prayer for bail after recording the statement of Seizing Officer. He has not yet been examined.Hence, the instant bail applications.

3. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioners that no case for the alleged offences is made out against them and their incarceration is not warranted. There are several flaws and laches in the case of the prosecution. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused-petitioners and they have been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.

4. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, 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. On earlier occasion, the bail applications of the petitioners were dismissed by this Court considering the statutory embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the gravity of the charges. However, liberty was granted to the petitioner to renew the prayer for bail after the examination of the seizing officer in the trial. It is submitted that the said officer has not turned out for examination. The petitioner is in custody since his arrest. Out of the total 22 projected witnesses, none of them have been examined.

7. It has been contended that there has been non-compliance of mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, though this Court refrains from making any conclusive observations at this stage as the trial is ongoing, and such comments may prejudice the proceedings, the defense plea in this regard cannot be out-rightly brushed aside. This Court feels that looking to the snail’s pace progress of the trial, it would still take a long time to reach onto a legitimate conclusion. It is also noticed that sincere endeavors have not been made by the trial Court in proceeding with the trial to get an early culmination of the same.

8. This Court observes that the nature and gravity of the offence, alongside the evidentiary materials presented, are not the sole determinants in adjudicating a bail application. The expeditious conclusion of the trial within a reasonable time-frame is an essential consideration when deliberating the grant of b