The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21, and unreasonable delays in trial warrant the grant of 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 concise facts of the case as alleged in the FIR are that on 12.01.2022 the SHO PS Ratan Nagar along with his team intercepted a Tata Tempo bearing registration No.RJ-20-GC-1785 wherein, the petitioner was found sitting on the driver seat sitting and during search 18 plastic bags carrying 270 Kg poppy husk got recovered. His first and second bail application being SBCRLMB Nos.4106/2024 & 8587/2024 were dismissed as not pressed by this Court vide orders dated 09.04.2024 & 25.11.2024 and the trial Court was directed to expedite the trial. Till today trial hasn’t been culminated. 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 12.01.2022 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 till date out of total 17 witnesses, statements of only three prosecution witnesses have been recorded in the trial. 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. 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.

7. While keeping an accused detained, the opportunity to the prosecutor to lead evidence can only be given for a reasonable period. The wider connotation of the phrase ‘reasonable period’ be understood to be one year because the case is classified as a sessions case which would mean that the like cases should commence and conclude within a session, that is, one year. Even if an elastic interpretation of the expression ‘reasonable period’ is taken on the pretext of certain unavoidable circumstances, then it can only be doubled and even in that situation, trial has to be completed within two years while keeping an accused in custody. Suffice it would to say that for the purpose of determination as to whether the accused is guilty or not, only a reasonable period can be awarded to the prosecutor if the accused is behind the bars. The cases which are classified as session case are purposefully directed to be heard by sen