The denial of bail based solely on the nature of the crime violates the right to a speedy trial under Article 21, especially in cases with prolonged detention awaiting trial.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

Bail petitioner namely Vineet, who is behind the bars since28.8.2022, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under S.483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.193/2022, dated 28.8.2022, under Sections 20 and 29 of the NDPS Act, registered at PS Sadar Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh.

2. Pursuant to order dated 27.12.2024, respondent-State has filed the status report and ASI Ram Lal, PS Sadar, Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, has come present with record. Record perused and returned.

3. Close scrutiny of status report/record reveals that on 28.8.2022, at about 9:40AM, police intercepted vehicle bearing registration No. HR51AY5016 at Bilaspur and allegedly, recovered one bag containing 2.940 kgs of Charas in the presence of independent witnesses. Since no plausible explanation ever came to be rendered on record qua the possession of the aforesaid quantity of contraband, police after having completed necessary codal formalities, lodged FIR and arrested all the occupants including the present bail petitioner. Since challan stands filed and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail. Co-accused namely Abhishek, who at the relevant time was driving the car was though enlarged on bail on 2.6.2023, by this court, but after his release from jail, he absconded and till date, has not been arrested. Present bail petitioner as well as other co-accused namely Vinay are behind bars for approximately two years and four months. Primarily, prayer has been made to grant bail on the ground of inordinate delay in conclusion of the trial as well as serious health conditions of father of the bail petitioner, who, as per documents adduced on record, is suffering from Stage-4 Cancer.

4. While fairly admitting factum with regard to filing of challan in the competent court of law, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, contends that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, but keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by him, he does not deserve any leniency. While refuting the claim of the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated, Mr. Kahol, states that there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record suggestive of the fact that the bail petitioner had definite knowledge with regard to transportation of the contraband in the car and he had been indulging in these activities for long. He further states that since one of the co-accused namely Abhishek, after his being enlarged on bail, has absconded, it may not be in the interest of justice to enlarge the petitioner on bail, who in the event of grant of bail, may not only flee from justice, but may again indulge in these activities.

5. Having heard the learned counsel representing the parties and perused material available on record, this court finds that on the date of the alleged incident, one bag allegedly containing commercial quantity of contraband came to be recovered from the bag kept below the co-driver seat. It is also not in dispute that at the time of recovery, present bail petitioner was sitting with co-accused Vinay on the rear seat of the car