JUDGMENT :

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. The present successive application is filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for regular bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11210015220079 of 2022 registered with the DCB Police Station, Surat of the offence punishable under Sections 8 (c) , 22(c ) and 29 of the NDPS Act.

3. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide CAV judgment dated 19.12.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.13296 of 2023.

4. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on the basis of the secret information about illegal trafficking of Narcotic Substance Mephedrone by the accused persons, which is kept in the house of accused No.1-Mustak Abbas Patel situated at Amreli Kosad Aavas, H-2, Building No.193/B, Flat No.4, the police authority, after following the due procedure, raided the house of the accused No.1, where the accused No.1 was present in the house and accordingly search was conducted of the said house, upon which, Mephedrone drug weighing 133.95 gram was found and seized by the police, pursuant to which, the applicant-accused, along with the other co-accused, came to be arrested. Hence, the impugned FIR.

5. It is contended by learned counsel Mr. Gajendra Baghel for the applicant that the applicant is languishing in jail since 28.04.2022, and as of now, only four witnesses have been examined out of total 60 witnesses witnesses cited by the investigating agency to be examined. It is also contended that the other co-accused persons having more or less similar role to that of the applicant, have already been enlarged on bail by this Court, a copy of which orders have also been appended along with the memo of the application, and as such, on the ground of parity, the applicant deserves to be release on bail. It is further contended by learned counsel Mr. Baghel that pursuant to the registration of the FIR, investigation was commenced, and ultimately, at the end of day, charge-sheet also came to be filed against total two persons, out of which, two persons have already been enlarged on bail. It is further contended that apart from the aforesaid 60 witnesses cited to be examined, there are so many documentary evidences attached along with the charge-sheet, and as such, considering the strength of oral as well as documentary evidences, the trial is likely to take considerable long period of time to conclude, and as such, considering the period incarceration already spent by the applicant, i.e, more than four years, still keeping the applicant behind the bar would be nothing but a pre-trial conviction.

6. It is further contended by learned counsel Mr. Baghel that the present application has been filed mainly on two grounds, i.e, delay in trial and the period of incarceration already spent by the applicant. It is also contended that most of the co- accused persons have already been enlarged on bail, and due to their non-availability as well as the prosecution witnesses, the trial is getting delayed, the resultant effect of which, would be that, if the same scenario continues, the applicant will have to remain in jail for an indefinite period without there being any fault on his part. Neither the contraband substance belongs to the present applicant nor the house from where it was found. It is further contended by learned counsel Mr. Baghel that even the Hon’ble Apex Court, in number of decisions, has held that ‘the prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and in such situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.’. To buttress his aforesaid submissions, learned counsel Mr. Baghel has relied upon the decision in the case of Mohd Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi), Special Leave Peti