Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

Bail petitioner Ev Raj, who is behind bars since 03.03.2026, has approached this Court by way of present petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.5 of 2024, dated 08.02.2024, registered at Police Station Swarghat, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 20 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short “ND & PS Act”).

2. Pursuant to order dated 24.04.2026, respondent-State has filed status report and ASI Vishal Singh has come present with record. Record perused and returned.

3. Close security of record/status report reveals that on 08.02.2024, police stopped a taxi (Maruti Alto) bearing registration No.HP-01K-5323 for checking. Since occupants of the car including the bail-petitioner got perplexed and started making excuses, Police conducted search of the vehicle as well as persons sitting therein and accordingly, after having associated independent witnesses, effected search of the occupants of the car and allegedly recovered 1.542 Kg of charas from the bag, which at relevant time was kept in a lap of persons sitting in the rear seat of the car. Since, no plausible explanation ever came to be rendered on record qua possession of aforesaid quantity of contraband, police after having completed all codal formalities, lodged FIR, detailed hereinabove and since then, bail-petitioner is behind bars. Since challan stands filed in the competent Court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail-petitioner, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail on the ground of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial.

4. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, while fairly admitting factum with regard to filing of the challan in the competent court of law, states that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail-petitioner, but keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by him, he does not deserve any leniency. Mr. Panwar, states that there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record suggestive of the fact that bail-petitioner is a drug peddler and in the event of his being enlarged on bail, he may not only flee from justice, but may again indulge in these activities. He states that out of 20 prosecution witnesses, eleven have already been examined, as such, it cannot be said there is an inordinate delay in conclusion of trial.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this court is not persuaded to agree with Mr. Hitender Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, that petitioner has been falsely implicated, rather this Court finds that commercial quantity of the contraband came to be recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner in the presence of independent witnesses. Though it came to be vehemently argued at the behest of the petitioner that he was merely an occupant of the car and had no knowledge whatsoever with regard to contraband, if any, being transported in the vehicle, but once there is no dispute with regard to recovery of contraband from the bag kept in car and at the relevant time, petitioner was one of the occupants of the car, it would be premature at this stage to conclude the innocence of the petitioner insofar as his involvement in the case at hand is concerned. However, having taken note of the fact that petitioner is behind bars for more than two years and till date, prosecution has not been able to examine all the prosecution witnesses, this Court is persuaded to consider the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail on the ground of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial. Though Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, vehemently argued that eleven prosecution witnesses have already been examined, but this Court is of the view that once it is not in dispute that it took almost two years for pro