The fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that 'Bail is the Rule and Jail is an Exception' and the right to a speedy trial are central legal points established in the judgment.

Judgment

Mr. Kuldeep Tiwari, J.

Through the instant petition, the petitioner craves for indulgence of this Court for his being enlarged on regular bail, in case FIR No.222 dated 15.05.2021, under Section 420 of the IPC, and, Section 22-C of the N.D.P.S. Act, registered at P.S. Civil Line, Kaithal, District Kaithal.

ALLEGATIONS IN THE FIR

2. Succinctly stated, the allegations, as levelled in the FIR, are that pursuant to a secret information, a police party, on 15.05.2021, conducted raid in the house of one Vikram Singh, where said Vikram Singh was found present along with the present petitioner, and, 207 tablets of Addnok-NNRX Buprenorphine 2 mg and Naloxone 0.5 mg total weight 22.77 grams, which falls in “commercial quantity”, 22 bottles of Pheniramine Maleate Inj. I.P.N-Vil injection (Veterinary use only for intramuscular injection only) 100 mls, 53 bottles of Pheniramine Maleate Inj. I.P.N. Vil Injection (Veterinary use only for intramuscular injection), 22 bottles of Pheniramine Maleate Inj. I.P.N-Vil injection, were recovered.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in his asking for the hereinabove extracted relief, has made the following submissions:-

(i) Petitioner has been falsely entangled in the instant FIR, as, despite the alleged raid being conducted in broad daylight and that too in a residential area, no independent witness was joined by the police party while effecting the alleged recovery;

(ii) Co-accused Vikram Singh, from whose house, the alleged contraband was recovered, has been enlarged on regular bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 06.11.2023, drawn in CRM-M-50682-2022;

(iii) Since case of the petitioner is on better footing than co-accused Vikram Singh, who has already been granted concession of regular bail, the petitioner also deserves being treated at par;

(iv) Petitioner has suffered incarceration of more than 2½ years;

(v) By placing reliance upon Annexures P-4 to P-12, which encompasses the zimni orders of trial court, he submits that despite issuance of multiple bailable and non-bailable warrants, trial is moving at a snail’s pace, as out of total 20 prosecution witnesses, only 6 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far, therefore, trial is not likely to conclude anytime soon and keeping the petitioner behinds the bars would serve no purpose;

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED STATE COUNSEL

4. Per contra, the learned State counsel, who is in receipt of advance notice, has placed on record the custody certificate of the petitioner, as issued by the Deputy Superintendent, District Prison, Kaithal. He has vociferously opposed the grant of regular bail to the petitioner, on the ground, that the recovery contraband falls within the category of “commercial quantity”, and, his earlier petition for regular bail, i.e. CRM-M-12117-2022, has been dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 18.05.2022. However, neither he has contested the factum qua the petitioner being behind the bars for more than 2½ years, nor has contested the factum qua examination of only 6 prosecution witnesses out of total 20 prosecution witnesses, nor has contested the factum qua grant of regular bail to the co-accused of the petitioner.

ANALYSIS

5. “Bail is the Rule and Jail is an Exception”. This basic principle of criminal jurisprudence was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, way back in 1978, in its landmark judgment titled “State of Rajasthan V. Balchand alias Baliay”, 1977 AIR 2447, 1978 SCR (1) 535. This principle finds its roots in one of the most distinguished fundamental rights, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Though the underlying objective behind detention of a person is to ensure easy availability of an accused for trial, without any inconvenience, however, in case the presence of an accused can be secured otherwise, then detention is not compulsory.

6. The right to a speedy trial is one of the rights of a deta