Surender Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Satyen Vaidya, J

By way of instant petition, petitioner has sought his release on bail in case FIR No.62 of 2018 dated 23.2.2018, registered at Police Station, Sadar

Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., under Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act (hereinafter referred to as “the

Actâ€) and Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Petitioner has stated that though the trial of the case has been completed, the arguments have

finally been heard on 2.9.2021, but till date, the judgment has not been pronounced and the case has now again been re-fixed for arguments on

15.2.2022 by learned trial Court. He has placed on record the zimini orders passed by learned trial Court in NDPS Act Regd. No.135 of 2018, in

support of his contention. It has also been contended on behalf of the petitioner that all other co-accused have already been released on bail during the

pendency of the trial.

I have perused the order-sheets passed by learned trial Court w.e.f. 2.9.2021. The case, after hearing the arguments on 2.9.2021, has been

adjourned repeatedly without pronouncement of judgment. Though, the intervening orders reveal that the case has also been fixed for hearing fresh

arguments and thereafter fixed for pronouncement of judgment. The case has been listed for this purpose only, on 30.9.2021, 1.11.2021, 27.11.2021,

27.12.2021 and lastly on 18.1.2022.

From perusal of all these order-sheets, it is difficult to understand, as to why the learned trial Court, has repeatedly adjourned the matter without

pronouncing the judgment. No plausible reason has come forth and for this purpose only the case has been adjourned, as noticed above, in routine

manner without realizing and caring for the rights of the petitioner for speedy trial. It has also been noticed that while deciding Cr.MP(M) No.2410 of

2019, i.e., bail application of co- accused in the case, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had been pleased to observe as under:-

“Be that as it may, in view of the above submissions, it is a fit case where the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi is requested to ensure that the

judgment is pronounced in this case before the Court goes for winter vacation. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn with all liberties

reserved, as prayed for.â€​

Again, on 8.4.2021, the same Bench, while dealing with the bail application of petitioner in Cr.MP (M) No.675 of 2021, had again observed as

under:-

“Given above, this petition is dismissed. As noted above, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had also observed that the trial court shall conclude the

trial as early as possible. After that this Court had requested the Sessions Judge to expedite the trial on priority basis.â€​

The aforesaid conduct of learned trial Court is a matter of serious concern. The matter be placed, on administrative side, before concerned

Hon’ble Administrative Judge.

Keeping in view, the delay already caused in disposal of the matter, learned trial Court is directed to decide the trial positively, on or before

28.2.2022.

With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of.

List for compliance on 4.3.2022.