Prolonged trial delay after two years, with minimal witness examination, constitutes change in circumstances for successive bail in NDPS case, violating Article 21 speedy trial right and warranting release despite offence seriousness.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for the grant of regular bail in F.I.R. No.188/2023, dated 06.09.2023, registered at Police Station, Sadar, Solan, for the commission of an offences punishable under Sections 21 & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (N.D. P.S). It has been asserted that, as per the prosecution, the police searched a vehicle bearing registration No. UP24AT-1960 and recovered 101 grams of heroin from it. The police arrested the petitioner on 06.09.2023 at 10:30 P.M. The police filed the charge-sheet before the learned Special Judge, Solan-III. The prosecution has examined only three witnesses out of thirty-two witnesses cited by it. The matter is now listed for examination of two prosecution witnesses on 20.09.2025. The trial is not likely to conclude soon. The petitioner had earlier filed two bail petitions before this Court, which were registered as Cr. M.P.(M) Nos 2851/2023 and 1673/2024, and were dismissed on 01.12.2023 and 24.09.2024, respectively. The co-accused have been released on bail by the learned Special Judge, Solan. The petitioner is a young boy aged 30 years. He is the sole earning member of the family. His continued detention would adversely affect his family members. Hence, the petition.

2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report, asserting that the police party received a secret information during their patrolling duty that a vehicle bearing registration no. UP-24AT-1960 was transporting heroin. The police reduced the information to writing and sent it to the Supervisory Officer. The police intercepted the vehicle and found that the petitioner was driving the vehicle. The police recovered 101 grams of Heroin from the vehicle. The police arrested the petitioner and seized the heroin. The petitioner disclosed that heroin was supplied by Satish Kumar. Satish Kumar had transferred Rs. 6500/- through Sonu to Sai African Super Market from his account. This account was in the name of Samir Shrivastava. The police arrested Udayveer Singh and Samir Shrivastava. The police have cited thirty-two witnesses, out of whom three witnesses have been examined, and twenty-nine witnesses are yet to be examined. The matter is now listed before the learned Trial Court on 20.09.2025 for prosecution evidence. The petitioner belongs to a different State and would abscond in case of his release on bail. He is the main accused. He is supplying heroin to various persons. He would indulge in the commission of a similar offence in case of his release on bail. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

3. I have heard Mr. Prikshit Rathour, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent-State.

4. Mr. Prikshit Rathour, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and that he was falsely implicated. He has been behind bars for about two years. The prosecution has only examined three witnesses, and the matter is listed for examination of two witnesses on 20.09.2025. The trial is not likely to conclude soon. The petitioner's right to a speedy trial is being violated. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

5. Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner was found to be the main supplier of heroin. Heroin is adversely affecting the young generation, and its sale shoul