TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 792X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ints out that one of the co-Accused namely Shri Aadil Ansari has been released on bail on 30.09.2020 by this Court. No doubt, in this regard, we keep in mind the submission of the State that the role attributed to the said Accused is different. The condition in Section 43D(5) of the Act of 1967 has been understood to be less stringent than the provisions contained in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - in the nature of the case against the Appellant, the evidence which has already unfolded and above all, the long period of incarceration that the Appellant has already undergone, time has arrived when the Appellant be enlarged on bail. The Appellant is directed to be released on bail subject to such conditions as sha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of incarceration. 3. This Court issued notice in this matter on 29.09.2021. Thereafter the matter came up on 26.11.2021 wherein the complaint of the Appellant that out of 180 witnesses cited by the prosecution, evidence of not even a single witness was complete was noted; the counsel for the State, was asked to get instructions and also to submit before the Court as to the approximate time within which the trial can be concluded. 4. Thereafter this Court passed the following order on 03.12.2021: The Petitioner is in custody since the last 7 years. Learned Counsel for the State submits that there are a total of 109 witnesses for prosecution. It is common case that the evidence of even the first witness is not yet completely recorde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2.2022: By the impugned order, the High Court has rejected the application for bail maintained by the Petitioner under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. We have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and also the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent-State. The Petitioner has been in custody since 08.05.2014, that is almost for 8 years. Based on an order passed by this Court as to the possibility of an early disposal of the trial itself, the report indicates that even after putting every effort in the matter and keeping in view the number of witnesses, Accused persons, Advocates, cross examination by them and the number of cases pending in the Court, there is probability of at least 2-3 year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om the Accused and the matter should receive attention of this Court after their evidence is adduced. However, these witnesses must be examined on a priority basis. In such circumstances, we pass the following order: There will be a direction that the Respondent-State shall ensure that these witnesses are examined on priority basis and that, at any rate, the examination is completed within a maximum period of two months from today. List this case for further consideration on 11.04.2022. The State will ensure that the deposition of the witnesses in question shall be placed before this Court after translation on or before 08.04.2022. Today the depositions of witnesses mentioned in the order dated 04.02.2022 have been placed before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amjit Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Paramjit Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (1999) 9 SCC 252 : 1999 SCC (Cri.) 1156], Babba v. State of Maharashtra [Babba v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 11 SCC 569 : (2006) 2 SCC (Cri.) 118] and Umarmia v. State of Gujarat [Umarmia v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 2 SCC 731 : (2017) 2 SCC (Cri.) 114] enlarged the Accused on bail when they had been in jail for an extended period of time with little possibility of early completion of trial. The constitutionality of harsh conditions for bail in such special enactments, has thus been primarily justified on the touchstone of speedy trials to ensure the protection of innocent civilians. 19. Yet another reason which persuades us to enlarge the Respondent on bail is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id Accused is different. 11. The condition in Section 43D(5) of the Act of 1967 has been understood to be less stringent than the provisions contained in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, as already noticed by us. We would think that in the nature of the case against the Appellant, the evidence which has already unfolded and above all, the long period of incarceration that the Appellant has already undergone, time has arrived when the Appellant be enlarged on bail. We bear in mind the fact that the prosecution seeks to examine as many as 109 witnesses of which only 6 witnesses have been fully examined so far. Accordingly, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and direct that the Appellant shall be released ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
