Point of Law: While deciding petition for bail viz. prima facie case, nature and gravity of accusation, punishment involved, apprehension of repetition of offence and witnesses being influenced.

ORDER :

1. By way of present petition filed under S. 439 CrPC, bail petitioner, Madan Lal, has approached this Court, for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 376, dated 27.12.2019 under Ss. 8, 20, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and S. 181 of Motor Vehicles Act registered at Police Station Sadar, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh.

2. Respondent State has filed status report, perusal whereof reveals that on 27.12.2019, vehicle bearing registration No. HP34D-4317, Alto car, coming from Bhunter side was stopped for checking by police at 1.30 pm, near Kota Dhar. Since driver and other occupants of the car got perplexed on seeing the police, police deemed it necessary to effect search of vehicle and the occupants, as such, after associating independent witnesses, police effected search of the vehicle and its occupants and allegedly recovered one rucksack kept under front seat, containing 1.695 kg Charas. Since occupants of the car were unable to render any explanation qua the possession of the aforesaid commercial quantity of the contraband, police after registration of FIR, arrested the accused on 27.12.2019 and since then, all the accused are behind the bars. Since Challan stands filed in the competent Court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, for grant of regular bail. It has been averred in the petition and further canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner that for last two years and ten months, petitioner is behind bars and till date only four prosecution witnesses have been examined, and as such, there is every likelihood of delay in conclusion of trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while inviting attention of this court to various judgments passed by Hon'ble Apex Court and this court, submits that delay in trial has been held to be violative of Art. 21 of the Constitution of India and since considerable time is likely to be consumed in conclusion of the trial, petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail because, due to protracted trial, incarceration of the bail petitioner would amount to pre-trial conviction of the petitioner.

3. Mr. Narinder Guleria, learned Additional Advocate General, while fairly acknowledging the factum with regard to filing of Challan in the competent court of law, contends that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, but keeping in view gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed by the bail petitioner, he does not deserve any leniency and his prayer for grant of bail, deserves outright rejection. While fairly admitting the fact that till date only four prosecution witnesses have been examined, learned Additional Advocate General submits that since the bail petitioner has indulged in a heinous crime, having an adverse impact upon the society, it may not be in the interest of justice to enlarge him on bail, because, in that event, he may not only flee from justice but may indulge in such activities again, as such, his prayer for grant of bail deserves outright rejection.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record this court finds that commercial quantity of contraband was allegedly recovered from the vehicle in question, which was being driven by Om Parkash. Since petitioner was one of occupants of car, from which commercial quantity of contraband was recovered, he was named in the FIR and is behind the bars since 27.12.2019, alongwith other accused.

5. Though having perused status report, wherein it has been stated that recovery was effected in the presence of independent witnesses, this court finds it difficult to agree with learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that his client has been falsely implicated but having taken note of the fact that the petitioner is behind bars for two years and ten months now and till date only four prosecution witnesses have been examined, whereas, ten more p