Point of Law: Period of detention is also a relevant factor for considering bail application alongwith other factors.

JUDGMENT :

Vivek Singh Thakur, J.

Petitioners have approached this Court, invoking provisions of Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’), seeking bail in case FIR No.74 of 2020 dated 20.7.2020, registered in Police Station, Banjar, District Kullu, H.P., under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NDPS Act’).

2. Status report stands filed. Record has also been made available.

3. In status report, circumstances in which petitioner, alongwith three co-accused, was found traveling in a vehicle carrying 1.515 Kilograms charas leading to his arrest alongwith co-accused after registration of FIR, have been narrated in detail. It is case of the prosecution that petitioner Ashwani Rana was sitting alongwith driver on left front seat and charas was recovered from a carry bag kept between front seats on handbrake, whereas co-accused Gulshan and Jatinder were sitting on rear seats.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Gulshan and Jatinder have been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 4.8.2022 passed in Cr.MP (M) No. 453 of 2022 and 31.10.2022 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1857 of 2022 and, therefore, on the ground of parity, prayer for enlarging the petitioner on bail has been made.

5. It has been further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is 33 years old young man who is behind the bars since last about 2 years 6 months, and as on date only 7 witnesses out of total 19 witnesses, have been examined and next date for recording evidence of three more witnesses has been fixed as 20.3.2023 and, thus, keeping in view the pace of trial, it has been contended that there is no likelihood of completion of trial in near future, and therefore, prayer for enlarging the petitioner on bail has been made.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, to substantiate plea for bail, has referred pronouncement of the order dated 1.8.2022 passed by the Supreme Court in a petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 3961 of 2022, titled as Abdul Majeed Lone Vs. Union of Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, wherein petitioner facing trial for having been found in possession of 1100 grams commercial quantity of charas was enlarged on bail for suffering incarceration for over 2 years and 5, months observing that there was no likelihood of completion of trial in near future; and order dated 12.10.2020, passed by Three Judges’ Bench of the Supreme Court, in Criminal Appeal No.668 of 2020, titled as Amit Singh Moni vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, whereby petitioner therein, facing trial for recovery of 3.285 kilograms charas from a vehicle, alongwith four other persons, was enlarged on bail for having been in detention of 2 years and 7 months, as till then out of 14 witnesses, 7 witnesses were yet to be examined and last witness was examined in February 2020 and, thereafter, there was no further progress in the trial.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred pronouncements the Supreme Court in Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan v. The state of West Bengal, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5769 of 2022, decided on 1.8.2022, whereby the accused under Sections 21(c) and 37 of NDPS Act was ordered to be enlarged on bail after detention of 1 year and 7 months, observing that the trial was at a preliminary stage.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on order dated 7.2.2020 passed by the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 245 of 2020, titled as Chitta Biswas Alias Subhas Vs. The State of West Bengal, whereby accused having found in possession of Codeine mixture above commercial quantity, was enlarged on bail after 1 year 7 months, at the stage of trial when out of 10 witnesses, 4 witnesses have been examined in the trial.

9. Reliance has also been placed on order dated 10.11.2021, passed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 5187 of 2021, titled as Kulwant Singh v. The State of Punjab, whereby