HETARAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second application for bail under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.100/2022 registered at Police Station Suratgarh Sadar, District Sri Ganganagar, for offences under Ss. 8/15 and 25 of NDPS Act. Learned counsel submitted that as per the prosecution, during routine patrolling, on 12/5/2022, a team of Police Station Suratgarh Sadar made a search of a Swift Car bearing registration No.MH-04-DJ-8865 wherein the petitioner and co-accused Sunil Kumar were travelling. After search being made, police recovered contraband (poppy husk/straw) weighing 80 Kgs. The petitioner was arrested on the spot.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 12/5/2022. He further submitted that out of total 15 cited prosecution witnesses, only 2 prosecution witnesses have been examined before competent Criminal Court. He further submitted that the delay in trial is not at all attributable to the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since the last two years and looking to the pace at which trial is being conducted against the present petitioner, the same is not likely to be concluded in near future. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the cases of Rabi Prakash Vs. State of Orisa (Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.4169/2023 and Mohd Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s).915 of 2023. On these grounds, he implored the Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that petitioner is facing trial for the offence under the NDPS Act and, therefore, the present bail application deserves to be rejected straightway. Learned Public Prosecutor, however, was not in position to refute the fact that in last 2 years, out of total 15 cited prosecution witnesses, only 2 witnesses have been examined till date.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for 2 years and out of total 15 cited prosecution witnesses, only 2 witnesses have been examined till date, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the bail application filed by the petitioner deserves to be accepted.