KULDEEP SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in the instant (second) petition is seeking the concession of bail under Sec. 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in case FIR No.74 dtd. 29/7/2019 under Sec. 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'the NDPS Act') registered at Police Station Sadar, Phagwara, District Kapurthala.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in custody since 23/3/2023. It is not in dispute that charges were framed on 23/3/2023, yet till date, only 03 out of 16 witnesses cited by the prosecution have been examined. He submits that despite the issuance of summons, including bailable and non-bailable warrants, the remaining prosecution witnesses, all of whom are police officials have failed to appear. As per the learned counsel, this pattern has persisted over no fewer than twenty seven hearings, rendering the progress of the trial virtually stagnant.

(3.) While relying upon the various pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court including Rabi Prakash Vs. The State of Odisha : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 533 and Dheeraj Kumar Shukla Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [SLP(Crl.) No.6690/2022], learned counsel has contended that an accused -particularly one with no prior criminal record -cannot be indefinitely incarcerated merely because the prosecution has been derelict in discharging its obligation. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is being penalised not for the alleged offence, but for the inexcusable apathy of the prosecution.