JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Moudgil, J. (Oral)

Relief sought

The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been invoked for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 671, dated 29.07.2022, under Sections 22, 22(C), 22(A), 29 of NDPS Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Karnal City, District Kamal.

2. Prosecution story setup in the present case as per the version in the FIR as under:-

3. Contention:

On behalf of the petitioner

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is at parity with the another co-accused Ashish Kumar alias Ashu, who has been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 02.08.2024 passed in CRM-M-34430-2024, copy of which has been produced before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner. He further contends that the petitioner was not initially named in the instant FIR but was subsequently roped in the same only on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused Kanhaiya Saini. It has been asserted on behalf of the petitioner that nothing has been recovered from the present petitioner also other co-accused persons, namely, Dharamveer and Amit Kumar have already been granted the concession of regular bail vide Annexures P-3 and P-4 respectively.

On behalf of State

On the other hand, learned State counsel has produced the custody certificate of the petitioner today in Court, which is taken on record. He seeks dismissal of the instant petition on the ground that the petitioner is involved in one more case i.e. FIR No. 293, dated 24.07.2022, under Sections 22 of NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Ram Nagar, Karnal, meaning thereby, he is a habitual offender, however, he is not in a position to controvert the submissions as made by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner being at parity with another co-accused Ashish Kumar alias Ashu.

4. Analysis

Be that as it may, considering the custody period i.e. 01 year, 11 months and 11 days for which the petitioner has suffered sufficient incarceration; the petitioner is at parity with another co-accused Ashish Kumar alias Ashu, who has been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 02.08.2024 passed in CRM-M-34430-2024; the petitioner was nominated as an accused only on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused Kanhaiya Saini; other co-accused persons, namely, Dharamveer and Amit Kumar have already been granted the concession of regular bail vide Annexures P-3 and P-4 respectively added with the fact that challan stands presented in Court on 21.07.2023, charges have been framed on 21.07.2023, out of total 34 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far, meaning thereby, the conclusion of the trial will take a long time for which the petitioner cannot be detained behind the bars for an indefinite period.

Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another", 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, wherein it has been held that the grant of bail is a general rule and putting persons in jail or in prison or in correction home is an exception. Relevant paras of the said judgment is reproduced as under:-

Therefore, to elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as is the mandate of the Apex court in Hussainara Khatoon and ors (TV) v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna, (1980) 1 SCC 98. Besides this, reference can be drawn upon that pre-conviction period of the under-trials should be as short as possible keeping in view the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.

As far as the pendency of other cases