Grant of regular bail based on the length of custody, completion of investigation, and the likelihood of trial conclusion, in consideration of the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Judgment

Mr. Vikas Bahl, J.

This is the third petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.44 dated 15.06.2022, under Sections 15 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Police Station Khanauri, District Sangrur.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 15.06.2022 and investigation is complete and challan has been presented and there are 17 prosecution witnesses, out of which, 11 witnesses are yet to be examined and thus, the conclusion of trial is likely to take time. It is further submitted that the present petitioner is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act and that the previous bail application of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn at that stage on 04.07.2023 and even thereafter, the trial has not made any progress, thus, entitling the present petitioner to file the present bail application. It has further been submitted that keeping in view the length of the custody of the petitioner, he deserves the concession of regular bail, as any further incarceration would be violative of the right of the petitioner enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon various orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein, solely on the basis of the length of custody, the concession of bail has been granted. Reliance has also been placed upon an order of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in CRM-3773-2019 in CRA-D-198- DB-2017 in case titled as “Bhupender Singh Vs. Narcotic Control Bureau”

3. On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the present petition for grant of regular bail to the petitioner and has submitted that the recovery effected from the petitioner falls within the category of commercial quantity and thus, bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would apply in the present case and thus, he does not deserve the concession of regular bail.

4. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has gone through the paper-book.

5. Hon’ble the Supreme Court vide order dated 04.05.2023 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).3221/2023 in case titled as Hasanujjaman and others Vs. The State of West Bengal, had observed as under:-

“xxx xxx xxx xxx.

They were arrested on the spot and have been in custody for more than one year and four months.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record.

4. The investigation is complete; chargesheet has been filed, though the charges are yet to be framed. The conclusion of trial will, thus, take some reasonable time, regardless of the direction issued by the High Court to conclude the same within one year from the date of framing of charges. The petitioners do not have any criminal antecedents. There is, thus, substantial compliance of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

5. In such circumstances, but without expressing any views on the merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to release the petitioners on bail subject to the terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Trial Court.

6. Additionally, it is clarified that in case the petitioners are found involved in any other case under the NDPS Act or other penal law, it shall amount to misuse of the concession of bail granted to them today, and in such a case, necessary consequences shall follow.

7. The petitioners are further directed to appear before the Trial Court regularly. In the event of they being absent, it shall again be taken as a misuse of concession of bail.

8. The Special Leave Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

9. As a result, pending interlocutory application also stands disposed of.”

A perusal of the same would show that in the abovesaid case, the custody of the accused was 1 year and 4 months and while taking into consideration the fact that investigation has been completed and the conclusion of trial would take time, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased t