An accused's right to a speedy trial under Article 21 mandates that excessive delays in trial should not negate the possibility of bail under serious charges.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

1. Bail petitioner, namely Sanjay Kumar, who is behind bars for the last one year, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 483 of BNSS , 2023, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.243 of 2023, dated 04.12.2023, under Section 20 of NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Bhunter, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh.

2. Respondent/State has filed status report and ASI Balraj, I.O., Police Station Bhuntar, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, has come present along with record. Record perused and returned.

3. Close scrutiny of status report/record reveals that on 04.12.2023, Police intercepted vehicle bearing No.HP-01-K-7463, near Banjar, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh and allegedly recovered 1.106 kilograms of Charas in the presence of independent witnesses. Since no plausible explanation ever came to be rendered on record qua possession of aforesaid commercial quantity of contraband, Police after having completed necessary codal formalities registered FIR against the petitioner and arrested him on 04.12.2023 and since then, he is behind 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 on the ground of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial.

4. Mr. Munish Kumar, learned counsel representing the petitioner states that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and as such, his incarceration in jail for an indefinite period during trial is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He states that more than one year has passed, but till date, prosecution has been able to examine only 3 prosecution witnesses out of 14 and for recording the statement of remaining prosecution witnesses, trial Court has fixed the matter in the month of May, 2025. While referring to the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled as Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another , Criminal Appeal No. 2787 of 2024 decided on 03.07.2024, Mr. Munish Kumar, learned counsel representing the petitioner states that speedy trial has been held to be a right of an accused and infringement of the same has been held to be violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In the aforesaid judgment, Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held that prosecution agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that serious crime has been committed, especially when delay in conclusion of the trial is not at the behest of accused, rather is attributable to the prosecution.

5. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, while fairly admitting 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 the gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed by him, he does not deserve any leniency and prayer made on his behalf for grant of bail deserves outright rejection. Mr. Panwar further states that since trial has commenced and three prosecution witnesses already stand examined, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail on the ground of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial is not maintainable.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court is not persuaded to agree with Mr. Munish Kumar, learned counsel representing the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated. Th