The significant delay in trial proceedings justifies the granting of bail despite statutory restrictions, prioritizing the right to personal liberty.

ORDER :

Rekha Borana, J.

1. The present fourth bail application has been filed under Section 483, BNSS on behalf of the petitioner who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No. 131/2020, Police Station Naal, District Bikaner, for the offences under Sections 8/22 , 8/25 & 8/29 of the NDPS Act.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that the trial is pending for about five years and the petitioner is behind bars since 31.10.2020 and till date, only six prosecution witnesses have been examined out of total 15 witnesses and hence, the conclusion of trial will take sufficiently long time.

3. Counsel further submits that co accused Harpreet Singh @ Sarba Singh has already been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12347/2024 vide order dated 04.12.2024. Therefore, it is prayed that the petitioner may also be enlarged on bail.

4. In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance on the recent order dated 29.01.2024 passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Mamata Begum @ Bewa @ Beguni @ Mamata Bibi vs. The State of West Bengal ( Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.68/2024 ), wherein the Hon’ble ApexCourt held as under:

“1. The petitioner is charged with offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985. She is in custody for a period of two years. Though the trial has progressed, only five witnesses out of ten have been examined as of date.

2. Bearing in mind the above circumstances and conscious as the Court is of the provisions of Section 37, we are of the view that it would be appropriate to grant bail to protect the personal liberty of the petitioner who faces an interminably delayed custodial period. Consequently, we order and direct that the petitioner be released on bail, subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Special Court under the NDPS Act in connection with Case No 1370 of 2021 dated 26 November 2021 (NDPS Case No 264 of 2021). The petitioner shall, however, cooperate in all respects in the early conclusion of the trial without seeking adjournment.”

5. Counsel also placed reliance on order dated 13.07.2023 passed by Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Rabi Prakash vs. The State of Odisha (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.4169/2023), wherein Hon’ble the Apex Court held as under:

“3. We are informed that the trial has commenced but only 1 out of the 19 witnesses has been examined. The conclusion of trial will, thus, take some more time.

4. As regard to the twin conditions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, learned counsel for the respondent – State has been duly heard. Thus, the 1st condition stands complied with. So far as the 2nd condition re: formation of opinion as to whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is not guilty, the same may not be formed at this stage when he has already spent more than three and a half years in custody. The prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)

(ii) of the NDPS Act.”

6. He also placed reliance on the order dated 01.08.2022 passed by Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan vs. The State of West Bengal (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5769/2022), wherein Hon’ble the Apex Court held as under:

“The p