Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

1. Applicant Mohd. Danish is in judicial custody in NCB Crime No.III/NCB/DDN/Seizure/01/2022, under Section 8/21C, 27A, 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Sub Zone NCB, Dehradun, District Dehradun. He has sought his release on bail.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant and the co-accused, Mohd. Faisal, were arrested together. The trial is proceeding simultaneously, but it has yet not been concluded. He would submit that on the ground of delay in trial, co- accused, Mohd. Faisal, has already been granted bail. It is a case of parity.

4. Learned counsel for the NCB would submit that it is the applicant, Mohd. Danish, who was procuring narcotic substances from one Asad. There is evidence to that effect that in a car, the applicant procured narcotic substances from Asad. He has been depositing money in the account of the mother of Asad. More than Rs. 2 Lakhs were deposited in 2 years prior to their arrest. It is also argued that the property of Asad has already been seized under the law. There is categorical evidence against the applicant that he was involved in the offence.

5. Learned counsel for the NCB would also submit that NCB would ensure that the trial would conclude expeditiously without undue adjournment.

6. It is admitted that the trial of co-accused, Mohd. Faisal, and the applicant is pending and is being conducted simultaneously. They both were arrested together.

7. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has already granted bail to the co-accused, Mohd. Faisal, on the ground of delay. In Para 10 of BA1 No.720 of 2022, Mohd. Faisal Vs. Narcotic Control Bureau, the Court has observed as follows:-

“10. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, no reason is found to keep the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period, therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage.”

8. It is definitely a case of parity.

9. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

10. The bail application is allowed.

11. Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.