Prolonged custody without trial completion justifies bail, emphasizing the need to evaluate the accused's role rather than solely relying on past offenses.

JUDGMENT

Namit Kumar J. (Oral)

Prayer in this 1st petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C., is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.49 dated 14.06.2022, registered under Sections 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act, at Police Station Cheema, District Sangrur.

2. As per prosecution case, the allegations levelled in the FIR are that on 14.06.2022, ASI Jasvir Singh alongwith his police party was on patrolling duty with regard to checking of suspected persons and was going from Village Tolawal towards Dharmgarh. At about 06.15 P.M. when the police party reached at drain bridge village Tolawal, they saw a car bearing registration No. UP 17-T-8125 on the left side of the drain and near the said car, two persons were seen standing with a polybag. On the basis of suspicion, ASI Jasvir Singh stopped his vehicle and alighted from the same alongwith the other police officials. In the meanwhile, the said persons threw their polybag which they were holding. Both the said persons were nabbed by the police team. On inquiry, they disclosed their name as Gurwinder Singh @ Happy (petitioner herein) and Simranjit Singh @ Jiya. On checking the said polybag, 900 intoxicant tablets (90 strips having 10/10 tablets each) were recovered. On these allegations, the present FIR was registered.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody for the last 02 years 01 month and 16 days.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the investigation in the present case is complete as challan stands presented; charges have been framed and out of total 14 prosecution witnesses, only 05 PWs have been examined so far and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude and, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner behind the bars.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in "Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another", 2022(10) SCC 51, to contend that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has discussed the serious issue with regard to repeated adjournments and its effect upon the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

6. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is a habitual offender and apart from the present FIR, he is involved in two more cases i.e. FIR No.101 dated 01.01.2020 registered under Section 22 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur and FIR No.237 dated 02.12.2019 registered under Sections 22, 29 of the NDPS Act, at Police Station Bhikhi, District Mansa and therefore, he does not deserve the concession of regular bail. However, he could not refute that out of total 14 prosecution witnesses, only 05 PWs have been examined till date; petitioner is in custody for the last 02 years 01 months and 16 days and the trial may take a considerable time to conclude.

7. Refuting the above contention of the learned State counsel, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in FIR No.101 dated 01.01.2020, the petitioner has already undergone the sentence and in FIR No.237 dated 02.12.2019, he is on bail. He further relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another", 2012 (2) SCC 382, to contend that the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be seen while deciding a bail application and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in other cases. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role