JUDGMENT :

Manjari Nehru Kaul, J. (Oral)

1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking the release of the petitioner on regular bail in case FIR No.41 dated 09.03.2023 under Sections 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Ludhiana.

2. In addition to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner qua the false implication of the petitioner in the present case, inter alia it has been also urged that the petitioner's continued incarceration (judicial custody) is illegal, as it is not supported by any formal order passed by learned trial Court after the presentation of the challan. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the chargesheet in the present case was filed on 18.08.2023, the petitioner has been in judicial custody without any formal order of remand being passed thereafter by the learned trial Court.

3. Drawing the attention of this Court to the zimni orders annexed as Annexure P-7, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned trial Court failed to pass specific and formal orders extending the judicial custody of the petitioner from time to time, thereby rendering his continued incarceration illegal. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Narayan Singh vs. The State of Delhi and others, 1953 CrLLJ 1113, wherein it was held that in the absence of a valid order of remand, continued detention of an accused would be illegal. He has further relied upon the judgments of this Court in the cases of Balwani Singh vs. Directorate of Enforcement, CRWP-9783-2024 and Chander Bhan vs. State of Haryana, CRWP2215-1990 to substantiate the legal necessity of a valid remand order.

4. It has also been submitted that after the petitioner was arrested on 09.03.2023, only 6 prosecution witnesses out of the 13 have been examined so far; it was a case of chance recovery, wherein a recovery of 14000 tablets of Tramadol was allegedly made from both the accused including the petitioner. It has been submitted that it is also a matter of record that the prosecution witnesses have been irregular in their appearances before the learned trial Court on different dates of hearing and therefore, the possibility of the trial concluding in the near future does not arise. In the facts and circumstances, the petitioner, therefore, deserves to be enlarged on bail.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel, has vehemently opposed the prayer and submissions made by the counsel opposite. It has been submitted, on instructions, that the present ground qua the absence of any specific and formal orders extending the judicial custody of the petitioner from time to time, was never raised by the petitioner either before the learned trial Court or before this Court until the present date of hearing. It has been further submitted, on instructions, that the petitioner was arrested on 09.03.2023 and duly produced before the Duty Magistrate on 10.03.2023, whereupon he was first remanded to police custody and thereafter, to judicial custody.

6. Learned State counsel, on instructions, has not disputed that as on date, only 6 prosecution witnesses out of the 13 stand examined, however, it has been contended by the learned State counsel, on instructions, that the petitioner was apprehended at the spot from a public place, and a large commercial quantity of 14000 tablets of Tramadol was recovered from him. Learned State counsel also submits that this is not the first time, the petitioner has been involved in a case of identical nature as it is a matter of record that even previously, he has been booked once in a case under the NDPS Act.

7. On a pointed query put to the learned State counsel with respect to the contents of the zimni order, wherein it stands indeed reflected that the trial has been prolonged on account of the repeated absence of the prosecution witnesses, who in the present case,