The court considered the implications of the evidence and the statutory bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act in refusing bail and ordered the trial court to extend the time limit for completion of the trial to enable the defense to procure and lead their evidence effectively.

Sudip Ahluwalia, J.

This is the second application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking regular bail in case bearing NCB Crime No. 14 dated 05.05.2015, under Sections 8/18/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 registered at Police Station Narcotic Central Bureau, Chandigarh Zonal Unit, Chandigarh.

2. The petitioner's earlier application for the same purpose was rejected by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.05.2016 which is Annexure P-3 of the application.

3. The matter was earlier heard in part on 23.5.2018, in which all the material submissions and contentions raised from the Petitioner's side were noted by the Court before directing the Respondent/NCB to place on record all the implicating material available against him to enable this Court to arrive at an effective adjudication. Consequently, relevant extracts from the said order containing the case background and the submissions/contentions raised on behalf of the Petitioner are being revisited again in some of the following Paras before considering the response of the NCB.

4. The petitioner was arrested along with his brother Sukhbir Singh on the date of the alleged raids and recoveries (5th May, 2015).

5. It has been contended that the available material on record does not reveal any involvement on his part in the matter of receiving, possessing or storage of the alleged contraband, and Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has shown a copy of the Recovery Memo which does not bear the petitioner's signature. It is further contended that no disclosure statement of the petitioner at all was recorded. In addition Ld. Counsel has drawn attention of this Court to certain other aspects which resulted in rejection of his earlier bail application. One of these happens to be the fact that a letter dated 15th June, 2015 purportedly written by the Zonal Director, NCB Chandigarh to the Superintendent of Police, Sirsa regarding suspected involvement of CIA Inspector Joginder Singh had been brought to the notice of a Coordinate Bench. The other aspect was that the petitioner had allegedly refused to submit his voice samples on account of which an adverse inference was ostensibly to be drawn against him.

6. Both these highlighted aspects find specific mention in the earlier order dated 27th May, 2016.

7. Now the contention is that the petitioner's voice samples were subsequently obtained and sent for Forensic Examination, but the report is inconclusive on account of which his involvement as alleged cannot be established. It is further submitted that no action qua the CIA Inspector, Joginder Singh whose name was specifically referred to in the communication dated 15th June, 2015 till date has been taken by any of the authorities on account of which, even that factor cannot now be used to the disadvantage of the petitioner.

8. It is further submitted that vide a separate order passed in relation to the bail application of co-accused Harbans Singh @ Bansa on 9th November, 2017 (Annexure P-4) the Coordinate Bench had directed the Trial Court to conclude the trial expeditiously and preferably within four months from that date. However, an extension for three months thereafter was granted in view of the fact that three days before the last date an application for placing the report regarding the voice samples was filed on behalf of the prosecution.

9. The bail application has been opposed on behalf of the prosecution/NCB basically on the ground that by now the prosecution evidence has already been closed, and even the statements of the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. have been recorded. At this juncture, the submission raised on behalf of the petitioner is that he now needs to be released for the purpose of more effectively leading his defence evidence, which alone now remains as the stage to be crossed in the Trial, and which he cannot do while being in confinement, especially in view of the fact that he is faced u