The right to a speedy trial is a constitutional guarantee, and prolonged detention without trial constitutes a violation of Article 21, warranting bail even in cases involving commercial quantities of contraband.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

Bail petitioner namely, Praveen Kumar, who is behind the bars since 25.01.2023 has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.12 of 2023, dated 25.01.2023, under Sections 20 and 29 of the NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Barmana, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh. Respondent-State has filed status report and ASI Lalit Kumar, Police Station Barmana, has come present with the record. Record perused and returned.

2. Close scrutiny of the status report/record made available to this Court reveals that on 25.01.2023, police intercepted car bearing registration No.HP-01K-7662 near Barmana, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh for checking and allegedly recovered 1.46 Kg. of charas from the dashboard of the vehicle in the presence of the 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 the necessary codal formalities, lodged the FIR, as detailed hereinabove, and since then bail petitioner, who was also one of the occupants of the car, is behind the bars. Since Challan stands filed in the competent court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of regular bail on the ground of inordinate delay in conclusion of the trial.

3. While fairly admitting factum with regard to filing of the Challan in the competent Court of law, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states 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 making this Court peruse material adduced on record, learned Additional Advocate General attempted to argue that bail petitioner is a drug-peddler and as such, in the event of his being enlarged on bail, he may not only flee from justice, but may again indulge in these activities. Learned Additional Advocate General states that since 14 witnesses, out of 21 prosecution witnesses already stand examined and for recording the statements of remaining prosecution witnesses, Court below has already fixed the matter on 17.02.2025 and 18.02.2025, there appears to be no justification to consider the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail on the ground of inordinate delay in conclusion of the trial.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, though this Court is not persuaded to agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated, rather there is ample evidence adduced on record suggestive of the fact that commercial quantity of contraband was recovered from the car being driven by the petitioner, however having taken note of the fact that bail petitioner is behind the bars for approximately two years and till date, prosecution has been able to examine only 14 witnesses out of 21 witnesses, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail on the ground of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial deserves to be considered. Though, learned Additional Advocate General vehemently argued that since majority of prosecution wi