The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court may grant regular bail considering the prolonged custody of the accused and the slow progress of the trial, despite the recovery of commercial quantity of drugs.

JUDGMENT

Alka Sarin, J. (Oral) - This is the second petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.46 dated 07.04.2017 under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 registered at Police Station Sidhwan Bet, District Ludhiana Rural. The first petition for grant of regular bail being CRM-M-18538-2020 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 17.12.2020.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner was initially arrested on 07.04.2017 and, thereafter, he was released on interim bail vide order dated 08.05.2017. The petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender since he did not turn up post the grant of interim bail. Subsequently, he was re-arrested on 02.03.2020. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that since 02.03.2020 the petitioner has been in custody. The charges in the present case were framed on 03.12.2020 and till date only one prosecution witness out of 14 has been examined.

3. Leamed State counsel has opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had earlier been granted interim bail and, thereafter, he was declared a proclaimed offender and was re arrested on 02.03.2020. It is further the contention that in the present case recovery of 250 gms. of 'Alprazolam' was effected from the petitioner which falls within the category of commercial quantity. It is further contended that there is another case pending against the petitioner under the NDPS Act where a recovery of 40 gms. of 'Heroin' was made from him.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. In the present case, recovery from the petitioner is 250 gms. of 'Alprazolam' which falls within the category of commercial quantity. However, the fact remains that the petitioner has been continuously in custody since 02.03.2020 and despite the charges having been framed on 03.12.2020 till date only one prosecution witness out of 14 has been examined. The second case against the petitioner is of recovery of non commercial quantity and he is on bail in the said case.

6. Keeping in view the long custody of the petitioner and the fact that the trial is not progressing, I deem this to be a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate/Trial Court concerned.

7. Additionally, within ten days of release from prison, the petitioner shall procure a smart phone and inform its IMEI number and other details to the SHO/IO of the Police Station concerned. The petitioner shall always keep the phone location/GPS on the "ON" mode. Whenever the Investigating Officer asks to share the location the petitioner shall immediately do so. The petitioner shall neither clear the location history, WhatsApp chats, call logs nor format the phone without permission of the concerned SHO/IO This condition shall continue till the completion of the trial or closure of case, whichever is earlier.

8. However, the Prosecution will always be at liberty to apply for cancellation of bail in case the petitioner is found to be misusing the concession of bail in any manner.

9. It is also made clear that any observation made herein shall not be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Disposed off.