Accused is entitled to bail after lengthy custody and minimal progress in trial, emphasizing right to speedy trial under Article 21.

JUDGMENT :

Jasjit Singh Bedi, J.

1. The prayer in this 5th petition under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 is for the grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No.07 dated 22.01.2022 registered under Section 15 of the NDPS Act , 1985 (Sections 25, 29/61/85 of the NDPS Act added later on) at Police Station Maloud, District Khanna.

2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner-Tirath Singh was apprehended with 90 Kgs poppy husk. During interrogation, he disclosed the name of his co-accused Amrik Singh being a facilitator, master-mind and supplier. From the further lead provided by petitioner-Tirath Singh, 15 Kgs poppy husk was recovered from Truck bearing Registration No.PB-lOPV-3260 belonging to co-accused Amrik Singh. Amrik Singh was also arrested and got recovered an amount of Rs.1,10,000/-.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. There was violation of mandatory provisions of the Act regarding search and seizure including Sections 42 and 50. The petitioner was in custody since 22.01.2022 and only 04 out of the 15 prosecution witnesses had been examined so far. Therefore, the Trial of the present case was not likely to be concluded anytime soon. In one other case registered against the petitioner FIR No.93 dated 20.10.2019, U/s 15 of the NDPS Act , 1985, P.S. Maloud, Ludhiana, he is on bail. He, therefore, prays that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nitish Adhikary @ Bayun Versus The State of West Bengal , SLP (CrL) Nos.5769/2022 arising out of judgment and order dated 04,05.2022 in CRM(NDPS) No.442/2022, decided on 01.08.2022 and Hasanuijaman & others Versus The State of West Bengal, SLP (CrL) No. (s).3221/2023 arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 29.11.2022 in CRM(NDPS) No.1323/2022, decided on 04.05.2023, the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail.

4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel contends that the petitioner is an accused in one other case under the NDPS Act . Therefore, he was not entitled to the concession of bail. He, however, concedes that the petitioner was in custody since 22.01.2022 and only 04 out of the 15 prosecution witnesses had been examined so far and in one other case registered against him, he had been granted the concession of bail. The copy of the order dated 28.11.2019 is marked as X.

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

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nitish Adhikary (a) Bapan Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) Nos.5769/2022 Decided on 01.08.2022 held as under:-

7. In Hasanuijaman & others Versus The State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No.(s).3221/2023, decided on 04.05.2023, held as under:-

8. Admittedly, in 'Nitish Adhikary (a) Bapan' (supra) and 'Hasanuijaman & others' (supra), the accused therein had been granted the concession of bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court after they had undergone approximately one and a half years of custody. They were also first-time offenders as is borne out from the orders.

9. In the present case, the petitioner has undergone more than two and a half years of custody. In the one other case registered against him, he has been granted the concession of bail. In view of the fact that the petitioner has undergone a substantial period of custody, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be diluted to an extent in view of the salutary provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India which provides for the right to a speedy trial and the case of the petitioner can be considered for the grant of bail.

10. Thus without commenting on the merits of the case, t