1. Bail petitioner namely Chet Ram, who is behind bars since 24.3.2019 has approached this court for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 52, dated 24.3.2019 under S.20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act registered at Police Station, Bhuntar, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh.

2. Respondent-State has filed status report. Karam Chand,, Investigating Officer, Police Station, Bhuntar, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh has come present with record. Record perused and returned.

3. Perusal of status report /record reveals that on 24.3.2019, police party present at the spot in question, laid Naka near Bajaura Ropa Raod and stopped one Bolero Jeep at 6.50 coming from Bajaura side. Since driver of the vehicle got perplexed after having seen the police, police deemed it fit to search the occupants of jeep and jeep itself and as such, conducted search and recovered 1.900 kg charas from a bag kept under the driver seat. Since no plausible explanation came to be rendered on record qua possession of commercial quantity of contraband by the occupants of the car, police after completing necessary codal formalities, lodged FIR, as detailed in above and since then, bail petitioner is behind the bars. Since Challan stands filed in competent court of law and nothing remains to be recovered, coupled with the fact for tthe last four years prosecution has examined only 6 out of 15 prosecution witnesses, petitioner has approached this court for grant of bail on ground of inordinate delay in trial.

4. While fairly admitting factum with regard to filing Challan in the competent court of law, learned Additional Advocate General states that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner but keeping in view gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by the bail petitioner, he does not deserve leniency and his prayer for bail deserves outright rejection. Learned Additional Advocate General further states that there is overwhelming evidence on record suggestive of the fact that bail petitioner indulges in illegal trade of narcotics, as such, it would not be in the interest of justice to enlarge the bail petitioner on bail as in that event, he may not only flee from justice but may indulge in such activities again. Lastly learned Additional Advocate General states that since five out of 15 have been examined, there is no likelihood of conclusion of trial as such prayer of the bail petitioner may be rejected.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material this court finds that commercial quantity of contraband came to be recovered from the jeep being driven by the petitioner in the presence of independent witnesses as such, this court is not persuaded to agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated however having taken note of the fact that the bail petitioner is behind bars for approximately 3 yeas 10 months and till date, prosecution has been only able to examine 5 out of 15 witnesses, this court deems it fit consider prayer of the petitioner for enlargement on bail, on the ground of delay in trial.

6. No doubt, petitioner has indulged in heinous crime having adverse impact on society but his freedom cannot be allowed to be curtailed for indefinite period during trial. No doubt rigours of 37 of the, are attracted but bare perusal of aforesaid provision nowhere suggests that court is estopped from considering prayer for grant of bail in the cases involving commercial quantity of contraband rather in such cases, court is required to provide opportunity of hearing to the public prosecutor before passing order if any. Since in the case at hand, prosecution in last 3 years 10 months has been able to examine 5 out of 15 witnesses , there is every likelihood of further delay in trial.

7. Though in the instant case as has been pointed above, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out that bail petitioner has been falsely implicated, but admittedly, thereis no material available on record suggestive of the fact that the bp. .has been indulging in such activities, as such, the bail petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail.

8. Hon'ble Apex Court having taken note of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial in similar facts ordered for enlargement of accused on bail in Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan v. The State of West Bengal, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5769 of 2022 decided on 1.8.2022 and in Abdul Majeed Lone v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No. 3961 of 2022, decided on 1.8.2022, , who were also framed under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and were behind the bars for approximately two years and there was no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future, subject to certain conditions.

9. Placing reliance upon aforesaid judgments, a Co- ordinate Bench of this court in CrMP(M) No. 1328 of 2022 titled Roop Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, decided on 6.9.2022, also ordered for enlargement of an accused, who was allegedly apprehended carrying commercial quantity of Tramadol, on the ground of delay in conclusion of trial.

10. Apart from above judgment, Co-ordinate Bench of this court while granting bail vide order dated 22.3.2021 in CrMP(M) No. 35 of 2021 titled Ajay Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, also placed reliance upon a judgment delivered by a three-Judge Bench in Cr. Appeal No. 668 of 2020 titled Amrit Singh Moni v. State of Himachal Pradesh, decided on 12.10.2020, wherein petitioner was allegedly found in possession of 3285 grams of charas from a vehicle, wherein four other persons were sitting.

11. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, to substantiate his plea for enlarging the petitioner on bail, has referred to order dated 12.10.2020 passed by a three judges Bench of the Supreme Court, in Criminal Appeal No. 668 of 2020, titled Amrit Singh Moni v. State of Himachal Pradesh, whereby petitioner therein, facing trial for recovery of 3.285 kilograms charas from a vehicle, alongwith four other persons, was enlarged on bail, for having been in detention for 2 years and 7 months, as till then out of 14 witnesses, 7 witnesses were yet to be examined and last witness was examined in February, 2020 and, thereafter, there as no further progress in the trial.

12. Learned Additional Advocate General, referring to judgment of a three Judges Bench of Supreme Court, passed on 19.7.2022 in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal contends that period of detention cannot be a ground for enlarging the petitioner on bail.

13. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in Mohit Aggarwal, huge commercial quantity of 20 kilograms of Tramadol, against minimum commercial quantity of 250 grams, was recovered, whereas, in the present case, the recovered quantity is little more than the commercial quantity.

14. In similar circumstances, in CrMP(M) No. 1255 of 2022, titled Puran Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh, decided on 28.7.2022, another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, having taken note of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial, ordered enlargement on bail of the person, who was apprehended with 1.996 kg of charas.

15. In view of the law taken note herein above, bail petitioner is definitely entitled to be released on bail, keeping in view the delay in trial.

16. Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in a catena of cases have repeatedly held that one is deemed to be innocent, till the time, he/she is proved guilty in accordance with law. Apprehension expressed by learned Assistant Advocate General, that in the event of being enlarged on bail, bail petitioner may flee from justice or indulge in such offences again, can be best met by putting the bail petitioner to stringent conditions.

17. Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 227/2018, Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr decided on 6.2.2018 has held that freedom of an individual can not be curtailed for indefinite period, especially when his/her guilt is yet to be proved. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty.

18. Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases 49 [LQ/SC/1991/350] has held that gravity alone cannot be a decisive ground to deny bail, rather competing factors are required to be balanced by the court while exercising its discretion. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative.

19. In Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta versus CBI, (2017) 5 SCC 218, [LQ/SC/2017/191] Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused in the trial and the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Apart from above, Court has to keep in mind nature of accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of the punishment, which conviction will entail, character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved in that crime.

20. The Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashis Chatterjee and another (2010) 14 SCC 496, [LQ/SC/2010/1194] has laid down various principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail viz. prima facie case, nature and gravity of accusation, punishment involved, apprehension of repetition of offence and witnesses being influenced.

21. In view of above, bail petitioner has carved out a case for himself, as such, present petition is allowed. Bail petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2.00 Lakh with two sureties surety in the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, besides the following conditions:

"(a) He shall make himself available for the purpose of interrogation, if so required and regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application;

(b) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever;

(c) He shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and

(d) He shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court."

22. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty or violates any of the conditions imposed upon him, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail.

23. Any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of this petition alone. The petition stands accordingly disposed of.

24. A downloaded copy of this order shall be accepted by the learned trial Court, while accepting the bail bonds from the petitioner and in case, said court intends to ascertain the veracity of the downloaded copy of order presented to it, same may be ascertained from the official website of this Court.