SHAVINDER PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE Petitioner seeks bail pending trial in a case under Sections 15 and 25 of the NDPS Act, 1985.

(3.) THE Petitioner has been in custody since 25.8.2005. He earlier applied for bail which was declined by this Court on 3.11.2006. The trial Court was, however, directed to conclude the trial within 4 months from the next date fixed before it. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has referred to the interim orders passed by the learned trial Court from time to time. However, till date, only one witness i.e. HC Shamsher Singh has been examined. It is not the case of the prosecution that any other case is pending against the Petitioner or he has been involved in similar activities. There are arguable points in the case. It is to be ascertained during trial whether the Petitioner was in conscious possession of the contraband as it is to be established that the Petitioner was the owner or the driver of the vehicle or whether he has no concern with it. Besides, the Police party had used a private vehicle at the time of holding the special barricade (Naka) at the bye pass chowk. However, no private driver is shown to be examined or joined by the Police during investigation. These aspects are to be gone into after the trial. These in any case, do prima facie show that there are certain discrepancies which would, however, require consideration after evidence has been led. In any case, the Petitioner has been in custody since 25.8.2005 for almost two years and only one witness has been examined so far despite the directions given by this Court on 3.11.2006 to conclude the trial against the Petitioner within 4 months from the next date of hearing fixed before it. The trial Court has been busy in other trials and the case of Amarjit Singh has been consolidated with the present case which has led to the delay. The delay, however, is not attributed to the Petitioner. Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides for speedy and expeditious disposal of the trial pending against an accused. Whenever the right under Article 21 is infringed, the Court is to pass appropriate orders to check the breach. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and expedient to admit the Petitioner to bail pending trial.