The court granted bail based on prolonged incarceration and non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, emphasizing the right to personal liberty under Article 21.

ORDER :

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

2. The first application being S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.13457/2023 came to be dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 15.12.2023. Hence, the instant bail application.

3. The case, in brief, revolves around the events of 16.03.2023, when the SHO Kotwali Police Station, Nagaur, along with his team, was on patrolling duty and upon receiving information from an informer, reached the BJP office, Nagaur at 5:55 PM and intercepted a silver Swift Dzire vehicle bearing registration No.MH-02-JP-6645. Upon inquiry, the occupants identified themselves as Premsukh and Shivnarayan alias Raju. A search of Premsukh led to the discovery of a transparent bag containing 59.75 grams of MDMA, while Shivnarayan was found in possession of 32.50 grams of MDMA. The vehicle search revealed additional paraphernalia, including an electronic scale and packaging bags. The accused failed to produce any license or permit for possessing or transporting the contraband. Consequently, an FIR No. 159/2023 was registered under Section 8/21 of the NDPS Act. After the investigation confirmed the commission of the offence, whereafter chargesheet was filed against the accused on 11.09.2023, leading to the registration of the case for trial. The prosecution has recorded the statements of key witnesses, and the matter is presently set for the prosecution's evidence stage.

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 25.08.2021 and since then he is behind the bars. Now, more than two and half 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 first bail application of the petitioner was rejected by this Court vide order dated 15.12.2023 passed in SBCRLMB No.13457/2023 but the petitioner has filed instant third bail application because out of total 17 witnesses, 3 witnesses have been examined in the trial till date. Co-accused Shivnarayan @ Raju has also been enlarged on bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.08.2023 passed in SBCRLMB No.9973/2023 and the case of the petitioner is not distinguishable from him. Further, a supplementary challan has been filed in the Court concerned against the co-accused Shishpal and Mahipal thus, denovo trial would commence and which would certainly take a long time to reach its legitimate conclusion, the petitioner has again approach this Court for protecting his liberty.

8. Perusal of the record revealing that the petitioner is behind the bar in th