SURJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present is a fourth petition filed under Sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.124 dtd. 2/9/2019, under Ss. 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Sadar Batala, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 2/9/2019 and he was also granted interim bail for some time and after excluding the time of interim bail, the total custody of the petitioner comes out to be 03 years, 3 months and 10 days. He further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner were with regard to recovery of 1200 tablets of tramadol, which were falsely planted upon the petitioner and he is not involved in any other case.

(2.) He further submitted that the charges have already been framed in the present case on 26/11/2020, which is almost three years ago and till date only one prosecution witness has been examined and there is no justification as to why the prosecution witnesses have not been examined. He further submitted that considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner may be considered for grant of regular bail. He has referred to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another, [2022 (10) SCC 51] and contended that when there is a long custody, which is not attributable to the accused and the delay has been caused by the prosecution, then Rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India are affected. He also referred to another judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is stated to have already suffered incarceration for more than 03 years, 03 months and 10 days and allegations against him are pertaining to 1200 tablets of tradamol, which although falls in the category of commercial quantity under the NDPS Act, this Court would therefore consider the prayer of the petitioner in the light of Sec. 37 of the NDPS Act. As per the learned counsel for the parties, the charges in the present case were framed on 26/11/2020, which is almost 03 years ago but only one prosecution witness has been examined. During the course of arguments, learned State counsel was asked as to what was the justification with regard to the same, to which he could not offer any justification. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil's case (supra) has discussed this serious issue with regard to delay in trial and its effect on the Right to Life of an individual under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Para No.49 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under:-