ANIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the second petition filed by the petitioner seeking the concession of regular bail in FIR No.186 dtd. 20/9/2023 registered under Ss. 22(c), 27-A/29 of The NDPS Act, at Police Station Baragudha, District Sirsa.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case pursuant to a disclosure statement allegedly suffered by co-accused Manish Kumar and Ajay Kumar following their apprehension on the basis of a secret information, and a recovery of 1000 intoxicant tablets. Learned counsel has submitted although a secret information had been received qua the involvement of co-accused Manish Kumar and Ajay Kumar, however, no such information had been received qua the petitioner, which clearly lends credence to his innocence. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel that after the charges were framed on 21/3/2024, the trial had not progressed beyond the examination of two out of the 18 witnesses cited by the prosecution and hence, on this ground alone, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail as there is no likelihood of the trial concluding in the near future in the aforementioned facts and circumstances.

(3.) Learned State counsel, on instructions from DSP Kirpal Singh, has not disputed the custody period of the petitioner, who has now been in custody since 19/9/2023 nor has he disputed that after the challan was presented on 14/3/2024, charges were framed on 21/3/2024, however, till date only two prosecution witnesses had been examined; co-accused Ajay Kumar and Manish Kumar from whom the alleged recovery was made have been extended the concession of bail by this Court on account of the repeated absence of the prosecution witnesses before the trial Court.