Right to speedy trial and personal liberty outweighs the risks associated with bail in non-violent drug offenses.

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:

• The court exercised jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code to grant bail in a case involving FIR No.76 under the NDPS Act, which pertains to alleged possession and sale of narcotic pills (!) (!) .

• The FIR detailed that the petitioner was apprehended based on secret information indicating involvement in drug trafficking, with specific circumstances of the search and seizure described (!) (!) .

• The petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated, and his search was conducted without the presence of a Gazetted Officer or independent witness. He has undergone over two years of actual custody and is involved in another case, where he is on bail (!) (!) .

• The prosecution highlighted that charges had been framed, and several witnesses had been examined, emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations and the constraints imposed by the NDPS Act, particularly Section 37 (!) (!) .

• The court recognized that the petitioner had been in custody for a significant period, and continued detention would not serve any purpose, especially considering the conditions of detention and the right to personal liberty under Article 21 (!) (!) .

• The court noted that the fact of involvement in other cases should not automatically disqualify the petitioner from bail, citing relevant legal principles that focus on the circumstances and role of the accused rather than mere criminal antecedents (!) (!) .

• The court emphasized the importance of the right to a speedy trial and observed that unnecessary incarceration could violate this right (!) .

• The bail was granted on the petitioner’s furnishing of adequate surety bonds, with specific conditions to ensure the integrity of the trial process, including non-tampering with evidence, not pressurizing witnesses, appearing before the court as scheduled, and refraining from committing similar offenses or influencing witnesses (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

• It was clarified that breach of these conditions could lead to bail cancellation, and the observations made should not be construed as a final opinion on the case's merits, leaving the trial to proceed independently (!) (!) .

• Pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of accordingly (!) .

Let me know if you need further assistance or specific legal analysis.

JUDGMENT :

Kirti Singh, J. (Oral)

1. The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been invoked for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.76 dated 02.07.2022, under Sections 22 , 61 and 85 of NDPS Act , 1985, registered at Police Station Ghanour, Distt. Patiala.

2. The relevant part of the FIR is reproduced below:-

"Copy of Original Rukka, SHO PS Ghanaur, Jai Hind today I ASI along with PHG Nachhatar Singh 30111, PHG Holi Ram 30780 in private vehicle with laptop printer were on patrolling at Seal Ghanoor Road near village Baghora at about 11 AM. Then the secret informer informed in that Kuldeep Singh son of Angrej Singh, resident of Baghora police station Ghanoor, aged about 30 years, body thin and agile, and tied yellow parna, had used to brought intoxicant pills from outside the state and sold them in Punjab, who is now coming from Seal Side village with a large quantity of narcotic pills, if the barricading be done now, Kuldeep Singh can be caught with the said large quantity of narcotic pills, the information is reliable and trustable. Kuldeep Singh son of Angrej Singh resident of Baghora police station Ghanoor has committed offence u/s 22-61-85 NDPS Act by keeping in his possession huge quantity of narcotic pills. The rukka was typed and the case sent to the police station through PHG Holi Ram 30780. The file number be intimated after registration of FIR and the competent authority should be informed about the further action.'

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner was apprehended on the basis of secret information and the search of the petitioner was not conducted in the presence of any Gazetted Officer or before Magistrate nor any independent witness joined. The petitioner has undergone an actual custody of 02 years 04 months and 03 days and he is involved in 01 another case, however, he is on bail in that case.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has filed custody certificate in Court today and the same is taken on record. As per custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone an actual custody of 02 years, 04 months and 03 days and he is involved in 01 another case however, he is on bail in that case. He on instructions from ASI-Swarn Singh submits that charges were framed on 03.02.2023 and out of total 17 prosecution witnesses, 05 witnesses have been examined till date. He further submits that in view of strict rigorous of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and serious allegations against the petitioner, he is not entitled to the concession of regular bail.

5. Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

6. Admittedly, the charges were framed on 03.02.2023 and out of a total of 17 prosecution witnesses, 05 witnesses have been examined till date. The investigation is complete and the petitioner has undergone an actual custody of 02 years, 04 months and 03 days and he is involved in 01 another case, however, he is on bail in that case.

7. It would be unjust to keep him behind bars looking at the condition of the jails which are not conducive for rehabilitation process and detaining the accused persons in jails would also tantamounts to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India including the right to speedy trial, and is against the principle 'Bail is a rule, jail is an exception' as elucidated in the judgment of Apex Court in ' Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another , (2018) 3 SCC 22 '.

8. As far as the pendency of other cases