The significance of the commercial quantity of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and the impact of the ongoing pandemic on trial proceedings were central legal points established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The extant bail application has been instituted under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Through, the extant bail application, the petitioner seeks his being granted, the, facility of bail in connection with FIR No. 30, of 17.2.2017, lodged under Sections 20 and 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, at Police Station Manali, District Kullu, H.P. The seizure as made from his alleged conscious and exclusive possession weighs commercial quantity thereof.

2. Earlier, the petitioner had cast Cr.MP(M) No. 198 of 2019 before this Court. The afore Cr.MP(M) No. 198 of 2019 was dismissed by this Court on 13.03.2019. The bail petitioner challenged the afore made order by this Court, upon, Cr.MP (M) No. 198 of 2019, through his instituting SLP (Crl.) No. 4047 of 2019 before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court declined to interfere with the verdict made by this Court, on 13.03.2019, upon, Cr.MP(M) No. 198 of 2019. The verdict made by the Hon'ble Apex Court, upon, SLP (Crl.) No. 4047 of 2019, on 08.05.2019 is extracted hereinafter:-

"We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. Consequently, the special leave petition is dismissed. However, we expect the trial court to proceed expeditiously with the matter. In case trial is not concluded within one year from today, liberty to the petitioner to again apply for bail before the trial court. A copy of the order be sent to the trial court."

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has contended with much vigour before this Court, that since the verdict made by the Hon'ble Apex Court, upon, the afore SLP, was made on 8.05.2019, and, when therein it has been mandated that in case the trial arising from FIR No. 30, of 17.02.2017, containing offences committed under Sections 20 and 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, and, registered at Police Station Manali, District Kullu, H.P., is not concluded, within one year to be computed from 08.05.2019, thereupon, liberty was reserved to the petitioner to again apply for bail before the learned trial Court. Consequently, he argues that since in pursuance to the afore liberty reserved to the petitioner, he proceeded to apply for bail before the learned trial Court, hence, the dismissal of his bail, application by the learned trial Court, through an order made on 23.05.2020, is, per se bad in law.

4. Even though, the order made by the learned Special Judge on 23.05.2020, hence, dismissing his application for bail, as became preferred by him before it, was challengeable through his instituting a Criminal Revision petition before this Court. However, merely want of the petitioner recoursing the appropriate remedy of his instituting a criminal revision before this Court against the order made by the learned Special Judge on 23.05.2020, may not, in the larger interest(s) of justice, bar this Court to entertain the extant bail application bearing No. 786 of 2021.

5. Initially, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has made a strong submission before this Court, that owing to the prevalence of the ongoing pandemic, the recording of the statements of the prosecution witnesses is halted/paused, and, also further argues, that since obviously there is a concomitant delay, in the conclusion of the trial, by the learned Special Judge concerned, as, arises from FIR No. 30, of 17.2.2017, constituting therein offences punishable under Sections 20 and 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, registered at Police Station Manali, District Kullu, H.P. Consequently, he argues that since the Hon'ble Apex Court in a case titled as Amit Singh Moni vs. State of H.P., Cr. Appeal No. 668 of 2020 (SLP (Criminal) No. 3813 of 2020), decided on 12.10.2020, the relevant paragraph whereof, stands extracted hereinafter, has proceeded, to, on the parameter(s) of pausing(s) or stoppage(s) of the recording(s) of statements of prosecution wi