The court ruled that the petitioner, charged with possession of an intermediate quantity of narcotics, is entitled to bail due to prolonged custody and insufficient prosecution progress.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested vide FIR No. 174 of 2023, dated 05.12.2023, registered at Police Station Amb, District Una for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ND&PS Act). As per the prosecution, the police team recovered 741 grams of charas from a Tempo bearing registration No. PB08AR-7839 (sic), which the petitioner was driving. The quantity of contraband stated to have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner is less than a commercial quantity and the rigours of Section 37 of the ND&PS Act do not apply to the petitioner's case. The investigation is complete and the challan has been filed before the competent Court of law. The trial of the case is likely to take sufficient time. Only 3-4 witnesses have been examined so far. The petitioner has already spent more than 13 months in custody. Some cases were registered against the petitioner but those cases have been decided. Hence, the present petition.

2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police party was on patrolling duty on 04.12.2023 when they intercepted a vehicle bearing registration No. HP49-2097, which the petitioner was driving. The police recovered 741 grams of charas from the Tempo. The police seized the charas and arrested the petitioner. The charas was sent to SFSL and as per the report of analysis, the same was confirmed to be charas. FIR No.94 of 2012, dated 19.12.2012 was registered against the petitioner in the Police Station for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 61 of the Excise Act in which a fine of Rs.5200/- was imposed. Proceedings arising out of FIR No. 55 of 2016, dated 14.06.2016 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC are pending before the Court against the petitioner. The petitioner was convicted in FIR No. 419 of 2003 dated 10.07.2003 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC. Proceedings arising out of FIR No. 58 of 2017 dated 22.04.2017 are pending before the Court for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 of the ND&PS Act against the petitioner. The police submitted the charge sheet before the learned Special Judge-I, Una. The petitioner is in custody. Four witnesses have been examined out of 20 witnesses cited by the prosecution and the matter is now listed on 25.04.2025 for the examination of the prosecution witnesses.

3. I have heard Mr. Umesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Manoj Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State.

4. Mr. Umesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody for about 13 months. The prosecution has only examined four witnesses out of 20 witnesses cited by it. The matter is now listed for prosecution evidence on 25.04.2025. The conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time and the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars indefinitely. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

5. Mr. Manoj Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State submitted that the petitioner is involved in the commission of a heinous crime involving the possession of narcotics, which is adversely affecting society at large. Therefore, he prayed that the present application be dismissed.

6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

7. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manik Madhukar Sarve v. Vitthal Damuji Meher, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2271, wherein it was observed as under: -

“19. Courts, while granting bail, are required to consider relevant factors such as the nature of the accusation, the role ascribed to the accuse