ANUP 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.54/2021 registered at Police Station Gulabpura, District Bhilwara, for offence under Sec. 8/15 of the NDPS Act. Learned counsel submitted that as per the prosecution, during nakabandi, on 12/2/2021, a team of Police Station Gulabpura flagged down a silver coloured car having registration No.MH-06-AB-3652 which was stopped and on being asked, the driver disclosed his name to be Anup Mali. After search being made, police recovered contraband (poppy husk/straw) weighing 92 Kgs. from four plastic bags. 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 12/2/2021. He further submitted that out of total 22 cited prosecution witnesses, only 7 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 last three 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.

(3.) 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 more than 3 years and 3 months, out of total 22 cited prosecution witnesses, only 7 witnesses have been examined till date. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.