JUDGMENT

Jasgurpreet Singh Puri, J. (Oral)

The present is a second petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 217 dated 19.12.2021, under Section 15C of NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Shahkot, District Jalandhar (Rural).

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 19.12.2021 which is almost 1 year and 8 months. He submitted that the allegations against the petitioner and the other co-accused were that they were coming on a canter and there had been alleged recovery of 110kgs of poppy husk from the canter. He submitted that petitioner is not involved in any other case and has got clean antecedents and it was a case which was planted by the police upon the petitioner. He submitted that the charges in the present case were framed on 16.07.2022 and has supplied the photocopies of all the interlocutory orders which have been passed by the learned Special Judge after the framing of the charges. The same are taken on record as Mark-X. While referring to the aforesaid orders, the learned counsel submitted that after the framing of the charges on 16.07.2022, the matter was adjourned for 16 times and right from the beginning, the prosecution witnesses were served and on 16.09.2022 the ASI Lakhbir Singh was summoned through bailable warrants because he was not appearing. Same was the position with PW SI Balkar Singh who also did not present in the Court despite being duly served and qua him also bailable warrants were issued. He submitted that the aforesaid PW SI Balkar Singh is the I.O of the present case and ASI Lakhbir Singh is the recovery witness and both the witnesses are the material prosecution witnesses but they despite being served at the initial stages, the Court was constrained to issue bailable warrants against them way back on first time on 16.09.2022. Thereafter on 15.10.2022, the aforesaid two witnesses namely, Balkar Singh and Lakhbir Singh were examined in chief partly and their remaining examination-in-chief was deferred. After the aforesaid date i.e. 15.10.2022 and till date these two witnesses have not appeared before the trial Court despite the fact that for 12 times bailable warrants were issued against them by the learned trial Court. He submitted that on some dates these witnesses were even bound down and on some dates it has been so recorded by the learned trial Court that bailable warrants have been executed against them and it is very strange that despite the fact the bailable warrants were executed against them still they did not turn up and again repeatedly the trial Court was constrained to issue bailable warrants against them. He submitted that till date only two witnesses have been examined namely, Satnam Singh and Kashmir Singh. He submitted that so far as Satnam Singh is concerned, he was only a formal witness who had deposited the sample in the Forensic Laboratory and so far as the Kashmir Singh is concerned, he was the complainant who has seen the petitioner and had informed the senior police officer and thereafter one DSP was also called as per the prosecution story.

3. The learned counsel also referred to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another [2022 (10) SCC 51] and contended that when there is a long custody, which is not attributable to the accused and the delay has been caused by the prosecution, then Rights under Article 21 of the Constituti