Point of Law : Right to speedy trial is a valuable constitutional right available to the petitioner - Petitioner has already suffered prolonged incarceration - She cannot be allowed to be detained in custody for indeterminate period.

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

Petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in case FIR No. 76/2021, dated 06.05.2021, registered under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act (for short ‘ND&PS’ Act), at Police Station Indora, District Kangra, H.P.

2. Petitioner is in custody since 06.05.2021.

3. As per prosecution case, on 06.05.2021, at about 4:30 pm, during routine patrol, police party was accompanied by independent witnesses and they noticed petitioner approaching the National Highway. At the sight of police party, petitioner got perplexed. She started walking back and simultaneously took out a polythene packet from her clothes and throwing the same on the road. She was apprehended by police. On search, polythene packet thrown by the petitioner was found containing ‘Heroin/Chitta’ weighing 6.7 grams. The case was registered and petitioner was formally arrested. The challan was presented and the petitioner is undergoing trial.

4. This Court has been informed during the course of hearing that only two witnesses were examined till 27.02.2023 and three witnesses, out of remaining fourteen witnesses were summoned for 27.02.2023.

5. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been in custody since 06.05.2021. The trial against her has been delayed inordinate and she cannot be made to suffer incarceration for indeterminate period. It is further submitted that the petitioner is permanent resident of Village Channi, Tehsil Indora, District Kangra, H.P. and she will not delay the trial in any manner and will remain available on each and every date.

6. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the prayer for bail, on the ground that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court for grant of bail in the same case three times. For the first time, her bail petition was dismissed as withdrawn, second time, the petition was rejected on merits and third time, the bail petition was dismissed as no changed circumstance was found to have taken place. It is contended that no circumstance has changed even after the passing of previous order by this Court and as such, the petitioner is not entitled to any bail.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General and have also gone through relevant record.

8. Record reveals that on more than one occasions, petitioner has approached this Court for grant of bail in the same FIR. On 01.07.2021, petitioner had withdrawn her bail petition bearing Cr.MP(M) No. 1068/2021. On 27.10.2021, the second bail petition of the petitioner bearing Cr.MP(M) No. 1791 of 2021 was rejected by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, on the following grounds:-

"5. It is not in dispute that two FIRs are already registered against the petitioner under the provisions of the ND&PS Act. The factors, which have to be taken into consideration by a Court while adjudicating a bail petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure inter alia are (a) gravity of the offence alleged; (b) whether, if released on bail, the petitioner is likely to jump the bail, and thus ,evade trial or influence the outcome of the same by trying to win over the witnesses; and (c) whether there is possibility that, if released on bail, the petitioner may again indulge in similar activities. Incidentally, all these conditions are independent of each other.

6. In this case, there is previous history of the petitioner of indulging in activities prohibited under the provisions of the ND&PS Act. The petitioner, while on bail in previous cases registered against her under the provisions of ND&PS Act, has again been found to have allegedly indulged in the commission of the offences punishable under the NDPS Act. In this view of the matter, though the contraband allegedly recovered from the petitioner is of intermediate quantity, yet, this Court is of the view that the petitioner