Lengthy custody without prior criminal records can justify bail despite rigorous statutory conditions.

O R D E R

1. The petitioner seeks his enlargement on regular bail in FIR bearing C.R.No. 470/2019, registered under Sections 8(c) , 20(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , 1985 (for short, `the NDPS Act’) at P.S. Kadodara, G.I.D.C. Police Station.

2. The allegations are that the petitioner owns a plot which was rented to store Ganja from where the petitioner’s co-accused used to deliver the contraband in the market. It is further alleged Signattureh Noat Vetrifie d the petitioner directed one of his co-accused – Shankar to Digitaly signed by SATISH KUMAR YADAV Date: 2d025e.01.2l0 iver 10 kgs of Ganja to a location in Surat. The petitioner was

18:42:55 IST Reason:

arrested on 20.01.2020 and is in custody since then. The matter was investigated; the chargesheet was filed on 24.12.2019, followed by a supplementary chargesheet on 19.03.2020. The petitioner, thereafter, tried his luck for regular bail twice but his applications were dismissed/dismissed as withdrawn on 16.02.2021 and again on 22.11.2021.

3. After commencement of the trial, the petitioner again applied for bail but the same has been declined vide impugned order dated 23.02.2024 of the Gujarat High Court.

4. The petitioner seems to have been denied bail successively on account of the fact that the had remained absconded after registration of the FIR till he was arrested on 20.01.2020.

5. The fact remains that the petitioner’s co-accused have been enlarged on bail; the petitioner has already spent more than five years in custody; the petitioner does not have criminal antecedents; the prosecution has examined seven out of seventeen witnesses and, thus, the conclusion of trial will take some reasonable time. It is true that the rigors of Section 37 of the Act are to be complied with, however, taking into consideration the period already spent by the petitioner in custody, we are satisfied that the twin conditions may not be rigorously insisted upon and are liable to be dispensed with.

6. Consequently, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we are inclined to release the petitioner on bail.

7. The petitioner is, accordingly, directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing adequate bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. Since the petitioner had remained absconded, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to direct him to furnish one of the sureties of being the local person.

8. The petitioner shall remain present before the Trial Court on each and every date of hearing, and shall fully cooperate for conclusion of trial.

9. The Special Leave Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

(SATISH KUMAR YADAV) (PREETHI T.C.)

ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR