Vivek Singh Thakur, J.

1. Petitioner has approached this Court, invoking provisions of Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.'), seeking bail in case FIR No. 3 of 2020, dated 4.1.2020, registered in Police Station Kot Kehloor, District Bilaspur, H.P., under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'NDPS Act').

2. Status report stands filed. Record has also been made available.

3. As per status report, on 3.1.2020, Police Party while patrolling near border of Himachal Pradesh and State of Punjab, at about 11:30 P.M. found two Trucks parked on the road, one of which was parked on the middle of the bridge and side door behind the driver seat was also open and one person was outside the truck, whereas another person was shifting apple carton to other truck. To ask the reason for parking the vehicle in the middle of the road, Police personnel got down from the vehicle and went towards the truck. On seeing the Police Party, driver of the truck ran towards Punjab and two persons shifting the boxes to other truck were inquired, who disclosed their identity as Manjeet Singh and Hardeep alongwith their addresses. Both of them were also perplexed and one person, i.e. Manjeet who was in the truck ran away from the other side of the door of the truck towards bushes, who could not be apprehended despite making out all efforts. Petitioner Hardeep also tried to ran from the spot by throwing the box which was in his hands, but he was overpowered and apprehended. Independent witnesses were associated by the Police Party and thereafter box thrown by petitioner Hardeep was checked, wherein Poppy straw/husk was found, which was identified on the basis of experience and smelling by the Police Party and witnesses. Other boxes were also unloaded from the truck and were checked and from these boxes 123.800 Kilogram Poppy Straw/Husk was found, which was taken in possession and seized by following the procedure.

4. Rukka was sent to the Police Station, on the basis of which FIR was registered and petitioner Hardeep was arrested. Driver of the truck Randhir Singh was arrested on 8.1.2020, whereas Manjeet Singh was arrested on 20.1.2020. Challan was prepared and presented in the Court on 3.4.2020. Petitioner alongwith co-accused after remaining in Police custody were sent in judicial custody and since then they are in detention.

5. As per status report, in the main challan there are 19 witnesses and 8 witnesses in supplementary challan and in total there are 27 witnesses, out of which 12 witnesses have been examined and 15 witnesses are yet to be examined and case has been fixed for recording of evidence of 7 witnesses on 28th and 29th April, 2023.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is continuously in judicial custody and is behind the bars since more than 3 years 3 month and despite being an undertrial prisoner, in the trial, out of 27 witnesses only 12 witnesses have been examined and now case has been listed in the last week of April, 2023. It has been further submitted that there is no role of petitioner in delaying the trial and there is no likelihood of completion of trial in near future and keeping in the pace of trial, according to him, petitioner are entitled for bail.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, to substantiate plea for bail, has referred pronouncement of the order dated 01.08.2022 passed by the Supreme Court in a petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 3961 of 2022, titled as Abdul Majeed Lone vs. Union Territory of Jamu and Kashmir, wherein petitioner facing trial for having been found in possession of 1100 grams commercial quantity of charas was enlarged on bail for suffering incarceration for over 2 years and 5 months, observing that there was no likelihood of completion of trial in near future; and order dated 12.10.2020, passed by Three Judges' Bench of the Supreme Court, in Criminal Appeal No. 668 of 2020, titled as Amit Singh Moni vs. 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 of 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 was no further progress in the trial.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan v. The State of West Bengal, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5769 of 2022, decided on 1.8.2022, whereby the accused, under Sections 21(c) and 37 of NDPS Act, was ordered to be enlarged on bail after detention of 1 year and 7 months, observing that the trial was at a preliminary stage.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on order dated 7.2.2020 passed by the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 245 of 2020, titled as Chitta Biswas Alias Subhas Vs. The State of West Bengal, whereby accused having found in possession of Codeine mixture above commercial quantity, was enlarged on bail after 1 year 7 months, at the stage of trial when out of 10 witnesses, 4 witnesses have been examined in the trial.

10. Reliance has also been placed on order dated 10.11.2021 passed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 5187 of 2021, titled as Kulwant Singh Vs. The State of Punjab, whereby accused after detention of more than 2 years, was enlarged on bail despite the fact that recovered contraband was of commercial quantity, for prayer to grant of bail was on the ground of advanced age of petitioner, period of custody undergone by him and the fact that trial would take time to conclude.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon order dated 7.12.2021 passed by the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1570 of 2021, titled as Mahmod Kurdeya Vs. Narcotics Control Bureau, whereby petitioner apprehended with thousands of tablets of Tramadol X-225, was enlarged on bail. In this case, quantity of drug recovered was more than 50 Kilograms. However, in this case bail was granted by taking into consideration the fact that charge-sheet was filed on 23.9.2018 and thereafter even charges had not been framed nor trial had commenced till grant of bail to the petitioner, whereas manufacturer who sold the drug to the accused had been granted bail.

12. Learned counsel for petitioner has also relied upon order dated 5.8.2022 passed by the Supreme Court in Gopal Krishna Patra @ Gopalrusma vs. Union of India (Cr. Appeal No. 1169 of 2022), wherein accused in custody since 18.6.2020 was ordered to be enlarged on bail considering the facts and circumstances on record and length of custody undergone by him.

13. Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment dated 13.1.2023 passed by this Bench in Cr.MP(M) No. 61 of 2023 titled Chet Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh wherein an accused under detention for the last 3 years and 11 months for recovery of 1.900 Kg. charas has been ordered to be enlarged on bail.

14. Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment dated 29.12.2022 passed by Coordinate Bench in Cr.MP(M) No. 2703 of 2022 titled Ram Chand vs. State of Himachal Pradesh wherein an accused under detention for the last 3 years and 11 months for recovery of 2 Kg. charas has been ordered to be enlarged on bail.

15. Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment dated 22.12.2022 passed by Coordinate Bench in Cr.MP(M) No. 2521 of 2022 titled Prem Chand vs. State of Himachal Pradesh wherein an accused under detention for the last 3 years and 9 months for recovery of 2.605 Kg. charas has been ordered to be enlarged on bail.

16. Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment dated 28.2.2023 passed by Coordinate Bench in Cr.MP(M) No. 349 of 2023 titled Kewal Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh wherein an accused under detention for the last 5 years and 4 months for recovery of 3.045 Kg. charas has been ordered to be enlarged on bail.

17. Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment dated 12.12.2022 passed by this Bench in Cr.MP(M) No. 2324 of 2022 titled Rajesh Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh wherein an accused under detention for the last 3 years and 5 months for recovery of 3.125 Kg. charas has been ordered to be enlarged on bail.

18. Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment dated 12.1.2023 passed by Coordinate Bench in Cr.MP(M) No. 59 of 2023 titled Joseph Shobal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and judgment dated 26.12.2022 passed by Coordinate Bench in Cr.MP(M) No. 2657 of 2022 titled Jeet Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh wherein an accused under detention for the last 3 years and 3-4 months for recovery of 3.382 Kg. charas have been ordered to be enlarged on bail.

19. Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment dated 20.2.2023 passed by Coordinate Bench in Cr.MP(M) No. 327 of 2023 titled Surender Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh wherein an accused under detention for the last 2 years and 7 months for recovery of 4.76 Kg. charas has been ordered to be enlarged on bail.

20. Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment dated 23.2.2023 passed by Coordinate Bench in Cr.MP(M) No. 323 of 2023 titled Tivalue @ Shiv Chand vs. State of Himachal Pradesh wherein an accused has been enlarged on bail who was under detention for the last 3 years and 4 months for recovery of 5 Kg. charas and out of 11 witnesses only 6 witnesses were examined.

21. Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment dated 23.12.2022 passed by Coordinate Bench in Cr.MP(M) No. 2570 of 2022 titled Chet Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh; judgment dated 4.1.2023 passed by Coordinate Bench in Cr.MP(M) No. 2836 of 2022 titled Kaul Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh; judgment dated 04.01.2023 passed by Coordinate Bench in Cr.MP(M) No. 2837 of 2022 titled Krishan Chand vs. State of Himachal Pradesh wherein accused under detention for the last 3 years and 1 month for recovery of 5.679 Kg. charas have been ordered to be enlarged on bail, observing as under:-

"7. The fetters placed by Section 37 of ND&PS Act, evidently have been instrumental in denial of right of bail to the petitioner in the instance case till date. The question that arises for consideration is, can the provisions of Section 37 of the Act, be construed to have same efficacy, throughout the pendency of trial, notwithstanding, the period of custody of the accused, especially, when it is weighed against his fundamental right to have expeditious disposal of trial

8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that till date only eight witnesses have been examined and ten more witnesses remain to be examined, despite the fact that petitioner is in custody since 20.11.2019. In the considered view of this Court, the Constitutional guarantee of expeditious trial cannot be diluted by applying the rigors of Section 37 of ND&PS Act in perpetuity.

.......

12. In Gopal Krishna Patra @ Gopalrusma vs. Union of India (Cr. Appeal No. 1169 of 2022) decided on 05.08.2022, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

"The appellant is in custody since 18.06.2020 in connection with crime registered as NCB Crime No. 02/2020 in respect of offences punishable under Sections 8, 20, 27-AA, 28 read with 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The application seeking relief of bail having been rejected, the instant appeal has been filed.

We have heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Panda, learned Senior Advocate in support of the appeal and Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned Additional Solicitor General for the respondent. Considering the fact and circumstance on record and the length of custody undergone by the appellant, in our view the case for bail is made out"

.......

16. Reverting to the facts of the case, the petitioner is in custody since 20.11.2019 and the facts suggest that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future. There is nothing on record to suggest that the delay in trial is attributable to the petitioner."

22. Referring aforesaid pronouncements, learned counsel for petitioner has pleaded that petitioner are also entitled for bail on the same analogy.

23. Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that petitioner has been found involved in commission of heinous crime of such a nature which is not only ruining the individuals, but also damaging the families, society and Nation and, therefore, petitioner is not entitled for bail.

24. It has been further submitted by learned Additional Advocate General that petitioner is resident of other State and there is every possibility of his fleeing from justice and, therefore, also he is not entitled for bail.

25. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is ready to abide by any condition imposed by this Court for enlarging him on bail and he is also ready to furnish local surety as well as surety of his relative.

26. It has been further submitted on behalf of petitioner that co-accused Randhir Singh and Manjeet Singh have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 7.3.2023 passed in Cr.M.P.(M) Nos. 2898 of 2022 and 388 of 2023 in similar circumstances.

27. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances, but without commenting on merits thereon and taking into account factors and parameters, as propounded by the Supreme Court and this Court, required to be considered at the time of adjudication of bail application, I am of the opinion that petitioner may be enlarged on bail in present case at this stage.

28. Accordingly, present petition is allowed and petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of ` 2,00,000/- with two sureties, in the like amount, one of which shall be local and other relative of petitioner, as undertaken, to the satisfaction of trial Court/Special Judge within four weeks, and upon such further conditions as may be deemed fit and proper by the trial Court, including the conditions enumerated hereinafter, so as to assure presence of the petitioner at the time of trial:-

"(i) That the petitioner shall make himself available to the Police or any other Investigating Agency or Court in the present case as and when required;

(ii) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. He shall not, in any manner, try to overawe or influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses;

(iii) that the petitioner shall not obstruct the smooth progress of the investigation/trial;

(iv) that the petitioner shall not commit the offence similar to the offence to which he is accused or suspected;

(v) that the petitioner shall not misuse his liberty in any manner;

(vi) that the petitioner shall not jump over the bail;

(vii) that in case petitioner indulge in repetition of similar offence(s) then, his bail shall be liable to be cancelled on taking appropriate steps by prosecution;

(viii) that the petitioner shall keep on informing about the change in address, landline number and/or mobile number, if any, for his availability to Police and/or during trial; and

(ix) the petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the Court."

29. It will be open to the prosecution to apply for imposing and/or to the trial Court to impose any other condition on the petitioners, enlarged on bail, as deemed necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and thereupon, it will also be open to the trial Court to impose any other or further condition on the petitioner as it may deem necessary in the interest of justice.

30. In case the petitioner violates any conditions imposed upon him, his bail shall be liable to be cancelled. In such eventuality, prosecution may approach the competent Court of law for cancellation of bail, in accordance with law.

31. Learned trial Court is directed to comply with the directions issued by the High Court, vide communication No. HHC.VIG./Misc. Instructions/93-IV.7139 dated 18.03.2013.

32. Observations made in this petition hereinbefore shall not affect the merits of the case in any manner and are strictly confined for the disposal of the bail applications.

33. The parties are permitted to produce copy of order downloaded from the High Court website and trial Court shall not insist for certified copy of the order, however, if required, passing of order can be verified from the High Court website or otherwise.

34. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.