Gurjeet Singh @ Goura vs State Of Rajasthan

Kuldeep Mathur, J

This application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.69/2020, registered at Police Station Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh, for offence under Section 8/22 of the NDPS Act.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

As per the prosecution, psychotropic substance (Alprazolam Tablet IP 0.5Mg tablets) weighing 176.40 gram was recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner on 29.02.2020. He was arrested on the spot.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 29.02.2020. It was also submitted that trial against the petitioner has commenced but in last more than 3 years, 9 months and 14 days, out of total 09 cited prosecution witnesses, only 2 prosecution witnesses have been examined till date. Learned counsel submitted that the delay in trial before the competent criminal court is not at all attributable to the present petitioner.

Drawing attention of the Court towards the order sheets of the competent criminal court, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the delay in trial is not attributable to the petitioner and no unnecessary adjournments have been taken by the defense before the competent criminal court. Thus, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail on the ground of prolonged trial.

Learned counsel submitted that an accused of NDPS Act is entitle to claim bail on the basis of principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rabi Prakash vs. The State of Odisha (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.4169/2023) and in the case of Mohd Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s).915 of 2023, wherein it has been held that if the delay in trial is caused and attributed to prosecution and / or in case prosecution witnesses are not turning up for their evidence in the witness box, the benefit of bail may be extended to the petitioner.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that petitioner is facing trial for the offences under the NDPS Act and, therefore, the present bail application deserves to be rejected straightway. However, he was not in a position to refute the fact that in last 3 years, 9 months and 14 days, out of total 09 cited prosecution witnesses, only 2 prosecution witnesses have been examined till date.

Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for about 3 years, 9 months and 14 days and the criminal trial has hardly reached the half-way mark. This Court also prima facie finds that the petitioner is not guilty of causing delay in proceeding / trial of the case pending against him and delay caused by the prosecution violates the right of the petitioner of speedy trial. Thus, 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.

Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner- Gurjeet Singh @ Goura S/o Mahendra Singh shall be enlarged on bail in connection with F.I.R. No.69/2020, registered at Police Station Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/-each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to so.