The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution is fundamental; prolonged detention without trial justifies bail, regardless of the seriousness of the charges.

1.Bail petitioner namely Bachan Singh, who is behind bars since 25.10.2023, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.148 of 2023, dated 25.10.2023, under Sections 20 and 29 of ND & PS Act, registered at Police Station Nadaun, District Hamirpur, H.P.

2. Pursuant to order dated 10.3.2026, respondent-State has filed the status report and ASI Puran Bhagat Singh, has come present with record. Record perused and returned.

3. Close scrutiny of record/status report made available to this Court reveals that on 25.10.2023 at 04:30 a.m., police party present near link road Gona Dhaneta received a secret information that charas is being transported in car bearing registration No. HP-22-C-7473, which is being driven by co-accused Ashok Kumar. On the basis of aforesaid secret information, Police stopped vehicle detailed hereinabove, which at relevant time was coming from Hamirpur side, for checking. Since occupants of the car including the bail-petitioner got perplexed and started making excuses, Police conducted search of the vehicle as well as persons present on the spot and accordingly, after having associated independent witnesses, effected search of the occupants of the car and allegedly recovered 1.491 grams of charas from a bag kept in the dicky of the vehicle. Since, no plausible explanation ever came to be rendered on record qua possession of aforesaid quantity of contraband, police after having completed all codal formalities, lodged FIR, detailed hereinabove and arrested both the occupants of the car and since then bail petitioner is behind the bars, whereas co-accused Ashok Kumar stands enlarged on bail. Since challan stands filed in the competent Court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail-petitioner, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail on account of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial.

4. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while fairly admitting factum with regard to filing of the challan in the competent court of law, states that keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, he does not deserve any leniency. Mr. Kahol, states that as per statements of the independent witnesses adduced on record, presence of the bail petitioner on the spot is not denied. If it is so, he is otherwise answerable for carrying/transporting huge quantity of contraband in the vehicle. He states that this Court, taking note of quantity of contraband recovered from the vehicle, can well infer that petitioner is a part of drug peddling racket and in the event of his being enlarged on bail, he may not only flee from justice, but may again indulge in these activities. He further states that since prosecution evidence has already commenced, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail on account of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial, deserves outright rejection.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court is not persuaded to agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated. It is not in dispute that at the time of recovery of commercial quantity of contraband, petitioner herein was one of the occupants of the car and recovery was effected in the presence of independent witnesses, however having taken note of the fact that bail-petitioner is beh