IMPORTANT POINT
Prolonged incarceration and delays in trial can override the statutory restrictions on bail under the NDPS Act, ensuring compliance with the right to a speedy trial.

JUDGMENT :

Jasgurpreet Singh Puri, J.

The present is a second petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing Crime No.24 dated 14.05.2019, under Sections 8, 18, 29 & 60 of NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Narcotics Control Bureau, CZU, Chandigarh.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in custody for 5 years and charges in the present case were framed on 30.03.2020 which is more than 4 years and there are total 27 prosecution witnesses and even 13 witnesses are yet to be examined. He submitted that when earlier the petitioner had filed a bail petition before this Court, the same was dismissed by this Court vide Annexure P-5 on 06.07.2023 wherein rather considering the incarceration of the petitioner, a direction was issued to the learned trial Court to expedite the trial only considering the long custody of the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel further submitted that the allegation in the present case was pertaining to recovery of 20 kgs. of Opium from two accused including the petitioner. He further submitted that in fact the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case because of the reason that earlier he was involved in one more case in which he stands convicted and because of the aforesaid reason, the aforesaid quantity was planted upon the petitioner. He submitted that be that as it may, the petitioner has already faced incarceration for 5 years and 13 witnesses are yet to be examined and therefore, the petitioner may be considered for grant of regular bail. He submitted that the bar of Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not apply to the petitioner in view of the long incarceration of 5 years and also in view of the fact that in the month of July, 2023, a direction was issued to the learned trial Court to expedite the trial but still the same has not been concluded and even report was called by this Court from the trial Court in the present case. He also referred to judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another [2022 (10) SCC 51], Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain Versus State (NCT of Delhi) [2023 AIR (SC) 1648], Dheeraj Kumar Shukla v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 SCC Online SC 918 and Rabi Prakash Versus State of Odisha, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.4169 of 2023 in this regard.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Sourabh Goel, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondent-UOI has submitted that so far as the custody of the petitioner is concerned, the same is correct. He submitted that there was a recovery of 20 kgs. of Opium which falls in the category of commercial quantity under the NDPS Act from two accused including the petitioner and therefore, the prayer of the petitioner is hit by the bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. He further submitted that the petitioner was earlier convicted in one case under the NDPS Act and sentenced for a period of 10 years and while his sentence was suspended, the present offence was committed and therefore, he does not deserve the concession of regular bail.

5. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

6. It is a case where the petitioner has already faced incarceration for 5 years. When the earlier bail petition was filed by the petitioner, a direction was issued to the learned trial Court to expedite the trial because of the long custody of the petitioner. However, the trial was not concluded and therefore, the present bail petition has been filed in which this Court had directed the learned trial Court to submit a report with regard to the status of the case and it has been so reported by the learned trial Court that 27 witnesses mentioned in the list of witnesses and three more witnesses have been summoned after the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C filed by the learned Special Public Prosecutor which was allowed on 23.04.2024. Out of the aforesaid witnesses, the deposition of 13 w