9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 1440X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 (c), 23 (C), 28 and 29 of N.D.P.S. Act read with Section 135A of Customs Act. 2. Heard Sri Tejas N., learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Madhukar Deshpande, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the materials on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is arraigned as accused No. 1. He has not committed any offences. He was falsely implicated in the crime without any basis and was apprehended on 15.09.2019. Since then he is in judicial custody. Learned counsel further submits that initially the petitioner had approached this Court by filing Crl. P. No. 162/2020. The said petition came to be dismissed on merits. However, in the meantime, the charge sheet was filed. Accused No.2 is already e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was never found in conscious possession of the contraband and therefore, the petitioner cannot seek parity with accused No.2. Learned counsel further submitted that as per the complaint filed by the respondent specific averments are made and supporting documents are also produced. Even as per the test report the contraband is confirmed to be hashish. Looking to the nature and seriousness of the offences and since the contraband seized from the custody of the petitioner was of commercial quantity, there is bar for enlarging him on bail under Section 37 (1) (b) of the NDPS Act. He also submitted that the claim of the petitioner for grant of bail was already considered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on merits and the same was dismissed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmed an opinion that the petitioner is not entitle for grant of bail. At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he is not seeking bail on merits of the case, but only on the ground of delay in trial. Petitioner was apprehended on 15.09.2019, the charge sheet came to be filed immediately during 2019. The prosecution has cited as many as 24 witnesses. A special Court is constituted to try the offences under NDPS Act. The pendency before the Court is about 1300. Invariably in many of these cases, the accused are in judicial custody. Under such circumstances, it is humanly impossible to dispose of all these matters in a time bound manner. Generally in these cases there will be lengthy evidence led by the prosecution and equ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ideal situation but with the infrastructure provided when compared to the pendency of the case, such early disposal of cases is not a reality. In such an event, if the accused is enlarged on bail only on the ground that the trial in the matter has not been completed, the same will have an adverse impact on the society as a whole and it will be like setting a bad precedent to be applied in all other heinous cases to get the accused released on bail. 13. Therefore looking at the seriousness of the offences and the materials that are placed before the Court, I am of the opinion that the accused is not entitled for grant of bail during trial. Hence, I answer the above point in the negative and proceed to pass the following; ORDER The petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
