The right to speedy trial as a Fundamental Right and the conduct of the prosecution and police officials can influence the court's decision in granting bail under the NDPS Act.

JUDGMENT

Jasgurpreet Singh Puri, J. (Oral) - CRM-47812 of 2022

1. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the copies of the orders passed by the learned trial Court are taken on record as Annexure A-1 (Colly.).

CRM-M-29089 of 2022

2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed.

CRM-M-48421 of 2021

3. The present petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.70 dated 16.06.2021, under Sections 22 & 25 of the NDPS Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Sadar Jagroan, District Ludhiana.

4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is a case where the petitioner is in custody from 16.06.2021 which is almost V/2 years and after completion of the investigation, the final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been presented to the competent Court on 15.12.2021 and thereafter the charges in the present case were framed on 18.02.2022 but till date no prosecution witness has been examined.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is a case where the petitioner was apprehended by the patrolling party on the suspicion of carrying some intoxicant substance and the allegation was that there was a recovery of 1060 tablets of Tramadol from him which although fall in the category of commercial quantity but the bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not apply in the present case in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances. He submitted that the petitioner is not a habitual offender and is not involved in any other case at all.

6. Giving a factual matrix with regard to how the prosecution case has been conducted, he submitted that the charges in the present case were framed on 18.02.2022 and referred to the subsequent zimni orders passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, vide Annexure A-1. On 14.03.2022 no PW was present and the summons issued to the IO namely ASI Surjit Singh were received served but he did not come present despite being served and therefore the learned Court had issued bailable warrants in the sum of Rs.5000/- with one surety in the like amount. Thereafter when the matter was taken up on 05.04.2022 again no prosecution witness was present and summons issued to ASI Jarnail Singh, who was a part of the police party, also did not come present and he was summoned through bailable warrants. On 26.04.2022, the prosecution witnesses were served but they did not come present and therefore non-bailable warrants were issued. Thereafter on 20.05.2022 again fresh non-bailable warrants were issued. Thereafter again on 06.07.2022 fresh non-bailable warrants were issued against ASI Jarnail Singh and bailable warrants were issued against ASI Surjit Singh. On 16.08.2022 again no PW was present despite the fact that they were served and therefore the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was constrained to issue non-bailable warrants once again. Ultimately on 20.09.2022 again no PW was present and therefore the learned Court was constrained to issue fresh warrant of arrest against PW ASI Jarnail Singh and bailable warrants of PW ASI Surjit Singh and in this way for a large number of times adjournments were granted by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge for the purpose of securing the presence of the prosecution witnesses but they did not even turn up despite the fact that they were served number of times and bailable, non-bailable and even arrest warrants were issued against the prosecution witnesses who were none other than the persons who were the part of the police party and are the material witnesses as well as the official witnesses who had rather put the criminal law into motion. He submitted that the petitioner has faced incarceration for the last V/2 years only because of the aforesaid conduct of the prosecution and the police party. He submitted that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the bar cont