The right to a speedy trial outweighs statutory limitations on bail, allowing for interim release when trial delays are excessive.

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 the petitioner came to be arrested in this case on 27.02.2023 in connection with recovery of 355 Kg poppy husk (in 18 bags) from the Truck Container bearing registration No.RJ41-GA4969 which was being driven by petitioner. His first, second and third bail applications being SBCRLMB No.10065/2023, & 12529/2024 were dismissed by this Court vide orders dated 03.10.2023 & 22.10.2024. While rejecting the earlier bail application this Court granted liberty to the petitioner to renew the prayer for bail after change in circumstance. 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 27.02.2023 and he has been behind bars since a very long period and the trial is progressing at a very slow pace. There are several flaws and laches in the case of the prosecution. He submits that the sanctity of the seizure memo, it was prepared at police station is highly doubtful and no explanation has been furnished by the team members as to why the search and seizure was not made at the place where the vehicle was intercepted and why the seizure was conducted/carried out at the police station which is not the place where contraband was recovered. Since the co-accused Ranveer Singh and Mohan Lal have been released on bail, thus, bail can be granted to the petitioner on the ground of parity. 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 on 27.02.2023, SHO Sadar, along with his team, during raid recovered 18 plastic bags containing 335 kg poppy husk from the bathroom of the petitioner. During investigation and petitioner was arrested and FIR aforesaid was registered at the Police Station Bhadesar, Chittorgarh under Section 8 /15 of the NDPS Act. The statement of the seizing officer recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. reveals that the process of seizure was conducted at the police station Sadar, Chittorgarh instead of the place where the recovery took place and the same is corroborated by the seizure memo. He submits that the sanctity of the seizure made in the premises of Police Station is highly doubtful and no explanation furnished by the team members as to why the seizure and sealing were not done at the place where the vehicle was actually intercepted. When the actual recovery had already been made and search and seizure had already been conducted at the place of interception before hand, then why was the memo regarding the same prepared at another place i.e. Police Station Sadar, Chittorgarh. It seems as if seizure/recovery memo has been prepared as a paper formality wherever i