Prolonged pre-trial detention over two years due to inordinate trial delay violates Article 21 speedy trial right, warranting bail despite serious narcotics offence gravity.

Sandeep Sharma, J.

Bail petitioner namely Ashok Kumar, 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. Pursuant to order dated 11.09.2025, respondent- State has filed the status report and SI Raj Kumar has come present with record. Record perused and returned.

2. 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 was being transported in car bearing registration No. HP-22-C-7473, which was being driven by the bail petitioner. 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 the accused and since then, both the bail-petitioner and co-accused Bachan Singh are behind bars. 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.

3. Mr. Ishan Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, while making this Court peruse status report, vehemently argued that it is admitted case of the Police that petitioner herein, who was allegedly driving the vehicle, is physically disabled and his one arm has already been stand amputated, as such, it is difficult to believe that vehicle from where commercial quantity of contraband was recovered was being driven by him. While referring to Unique Disability ID, which is placed on record, Mr. Sharma, argued that petitioner has been falsely implicated because due to his physical disability, it is not only difficult for him to drive the vehicle but also to maintain himself. Mr. Sharma, submitted that mere presence of the bail-petitioner in vehicle from where commercial quantity of contraband came to be recovered cannot be ground to arrest him, especially when there is nothing on record to prove that petitioner had prior knowledge with regard to contraband allegedly kept in the dicky of the car. Lastly, Mr. Sharma, submitted that bail petitioner is behind bars for more than two years, but till date prosecution has been able to examine only 2 witnesses out of 39, meaning thereby, considerable time is likely to be consumed in conclusion of trial and in case during afore period, petitioner is left to incarcerate in jail, it would amount to pre-trial conviction, which is not permissible in law.

4. To the contrary, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while fairly admitting factum with regard to filing of the cha