The right to a speedy trial can necessitate granting bail even under stringent conditions, particularly when incarceration exceeds reasonable limits.

JUDGMENT :

Savitri Ratho, J.

This is the third successive bail application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Ulunda P.S. Case No.27 of 2017 corresponding to Special G.R. Case No.14 of 2017 pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge -cum- Special Judge, Sonepur for commission of offence punishable under Section 20 (b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short “ the NDPS Act).

2. While dismissing BLAPL No. 11108 of 2019 filed by the petitioner by order dated 25.10.2021, the learned trial court had been directed to expedite the trial. In the second bail application - BLAPL No. 1953 of 2022, I was not inclined to allow the prayer for bail but while disposing of the bail application by order dated 21.07.2022, had requested the learned trial Court to conclude the trial within a period of six months as the petitioner had remained in custody since more than five years.

3. Perusal of the impugned order dated 30.08.2022 reveals that just after expiry of one month, the petitioner had moved the learned trial court for bail and the prayer has been rejected the bail holding that the earlier bail applications had been rejected five times earlier and there was no change in circumstances to take a different view, hearing in the case had commenced and the petitioner was a resident of Sabahi Tarwah, Police Station - Turukpatti, District - Kushinagar in Uttar Pradesh for which there was every chance of his absconding and least chance of apprehending him and the ganja seized was of commercial quantity.

4. When this case had been listed on 27.04.2023, considering the submission of Mr. S.R. Pati, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was in custody since 26.03.2017 and in spite of order dated 25.10.2021 passed in BLAPL No. 11108 of 2019 and order dated 21.07.2022 passed in BLAPL No. 1953 of 2022 the trial was still lingering and out of fourteen charge sheet witnesses, three witnesses had only been examined, a report had been called for from the learned trial Court regarding the status of the trial. Reports dated 03.05.2023 and 18.05.2023, received from the learned Special Judge -cum- Sessions Judge, Sonepur reveal that charge has been framed in the case i.e. 16.11.2018 under Section 20 (b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act against the two accused persons in the trial namely the petitioner Ramakanta Prasad and co-accused Pradeep Kumar. Co-accused Pradeep Kumar has been released on interim bail pursuant to order dated 26.11.2021 passed in BLAPL No. 10737 of 2019 by this Court and he had directed to surrender on 11.03.2022. But as he did not appear on the said date, NBW of arrest had been issued against him and the case has been split up against him. In the present trial out of fourteen charge sheet witnesses, four witnesses had been examined and summons had been issued, fixing 17.05.2023 for hearing. On 17.05.2023, two more witnesses had been examined and summons had been issued against the rest of the charge sheeted witnesses and the case was posted to 27.06.2023 for hearing.

5. Mr. S.R. Pati, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 26.03.2017 and out of fourteen charge sheet witnesses, only six witnesses had been examined and the petitioner was not responsible for the delay in the trial. He further submitted that the right of speedy trial is available to the petitioner as held in a catena of decisions by the Supreme Court. Relying on the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Shaheen Welfare As