The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21, and delays in trial can justify bail, even in serious offenses involving commercial quantities of narcotics.

JUDGMENT :
SANDEEP SHARMA, J.

Bail petitioner, namely Alamgir, who is behind the bars since 23.12.2024, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 483 BNSS, 2023, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.65 of 2024, dated 23.12.2024, under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, registered at Women Police Station Chamba, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh.

2. Respondent/State has filed status report and SI Nikhil Kumar, WPS Chamba, has come present along with record. Record perused and returned.

3. Close scrutiny of status report/record reveals that on 23.12.2024 at about 05:35 am, Police party present near Shiv Mandi Parel, Chamba-Pathankot National Highway-154A, stopped one motorcycle bearing No.PB-06-BH-9146 for checking. Since driver of the motorcycle got perplexed and started making excuses, Police after having associated independent witnesses, deemed it necessary to conduct search of the driver as well as motorcycle and allegedly recovered 1.016 kg of charas. Since no plausible explanation ever came to be rendered on record qua possession of aforesaid commercial quantity of contraband, Police, after having lodged FIR detailed hereinabove, arrested the petitioner and since then, he is behind bars.

4. Since investigation in the case at hand is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from the 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. Prosecution with a view to prove its case, has proposed to examine 20 witnesses, but till date, has been able to examine only two witnesses.

5. While fairly admitting factum with regard to filing of Challan in the competent Court of law, Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy 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. He states that there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record suggestive of the fact that petitioner is a drug peddler and he is allegedly selling drugs to young generation and as such, it may not be in the interest of justice to enlarge him on bail, because in that event, he may not only flee from justice, but may again indulge in these activities. While fairly admitting that in past, no case stands registered against the petitioner, Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, states that taking note of quantity of contraband recovered from the petitioner, it cannot be said that petitioner is a consumer, rather he is a drug peddle and as such, needs to be dealt with severely. He states that since prosecution has already examined two witnesses and for recording the statement of remaining witnesses, Court below has fixed the matter for 07/08.04.2026, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail on the ground of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial deserves to be rejected.

6. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused material available on record, this Court is not persuaded to agree with Mr. P.K. Verma, learned counsel representing the petitioner, that petitioner herein has been falsely implicated, rather, there is ample evidence adduced on record suggestive of the fact that commercial quantity of contraband