Raju Ram v. State of Bihar

Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN 03/02/2025 Order

1. The instant fifth application for bail under Section 483 BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who is in custody since

16.07.2022 connection Case File No.VIII(IO)/17/NCB/JZU/2022 at Narcotics Control Bureau, Jodhpur for offences under Section 8/18, 8/25 & 8/29 of the NDPS Act.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He contends that while deciding second bail application (No.1381/2024), vide order dated

05.04.2024, the trial court was directed to conclude the trial within a period of six months but despite lapse of more than ten months, trial has not been concluded. The petitioner was arrested in connection with the aforesaid FIR on 16.07.2022 and since then, he is languishing in jail and incarcerated for more than two [2025:RJ-JP:4756] (2 of 6) [CRLMB-12881/2024] and half months. He has placed the copy of the ordersheets of the learned trial court for perusal of this Court and submits that a perusal thereof, clearly reflects that the trial is going at a snail’s pace. Counsel submits that adjournment was sought on behalf of the accused petitioner on the ground of illness of his counsel. He contends that even after issuing bailable warrants against the prosecution witnesses, the prosecution has failed to secure their presence for recording their testimony. The witnesses are not turning up for their evidence and till date, only six witnesses have been examined so far and thus, trial will take long time in it conclusion. He contends that this lethargic attitude of the prosecution is seriously violating the fundamental right of the speedy trial of the petitioner as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo. The period of custody is always relevant consideration for grant of bail. He also submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act.

3. He has also placed reliance upon the following judgments passed by Hon'ble Apex Court as well as of this Court in which period of incarceration has been considered relevant for grant of bail:-

3. Raju Ram vs State of Bihar : (2023) 1 Supreme 670 Abdul Majeed Lone Vs. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3961/2022 Amit Singh Moni Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh : Crimial Appeal No.668/2020

4. Tapan Das vs. UOI (Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.5617/2021 [2025:RJ-JP:4756] (3 of 6) [CRLMB-12881/2024]

4. He submits that in all these cases, bail was granted only on the ground of period of incarceration. He submits that in the case of Raju Ram (supra), it has been held that on the basis of period of incarceration, bail can be granted by relaxing the provision of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that contraband in huge quantity was recovered from the petitioner and considering the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail should not be granted.

6. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced by counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.

7. While deciding second bail application, the learned trial court was directed to conclude trial within a period of six months but despite lapse of more than ten months, trial could not be concluded. As per record, the petitioner is in custody since

16.07.2022 and thus, he has suffered incarceration of nearly 2 years and 6 months till date. It also appears from the ordersheets of the learned trial court that till date only six witnesses have been examined and witnesses are not turning up for their evidence even after issuance of bailable warrants resulting in delaying the trial. The fundamental right of the petitioner of speedy trial is also being violated. The Hon'ble Apex Court has granted bail to different accused persons by considering the period of [2025:RJ-JP:4756] (4 of 6) [CRLMB-12881/2024] incarceration of about two years or more. The petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act.

8. The personal liberty is a priceless treasure for a human being. It is basically a natural right. No one would like to lose his liberty. People from centuries have fought for liberty, for absence of liberty causes sense of emptiness. The sanctity of liberty is the fulcrum of any civilized society.

9. The expression 'Personal Liberty' in Article 21 of the Constitution is of the widest amplitude and it covers a variety of rights which go to constitute the personal liberty of a person and some of them have been raised to the status of distinct fundamental rights and given additional protection under Article 19 of the Constitution. 'Personal Liberty' under Article 21 of the Constitution primarily means freedom from physical restraint of person by incarceration or otherwise. The concept of "right to life and personal liberty" guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the "right to live with dignity" and it does not mean mere animal like existence of life. After the Hon’ble Supreme Court's decision rendered in the case of Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597, Article 21 of the Constitution now protects the right of life and personal liberty of citizen not only from the executive action but from the legislative action also. A person can be deprived of his life and personal liberty if two conditions are complied with, first, there must be a law and secondly, there must be a procedure prescribed by that law provided that the procedure is just, fair and reasonable. [2025:RJ-JP:4756] (5 of 6) [CRLMB-12881/2024]

10. Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in catena of the judgments that prolonged incarceration without trial is violative of rights of an accused and the court should step in to protect him and no provision can take away the power of constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of fundamental rights. Prolonged incarceration is a valid ground for granting bail in the Indian judiciary system, particularly when coupled with the anticipated length of the trial. The right to liberty under Article 21 is a critical consideration, and courts should incline to grant bail to prevent undue hardship particularly when prosecution is not showing promptness in producing witnesses. However, the nature of the offence, potential risks associated with releasing the accused, and the overall context of the case must be carefully evaluated.

11. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case especially the fact that the petitioner is in custody since

16.07.2022, trial will take time in its conclusion as nine witnesses are yet to be examined during the course of trial, absence of criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act and in similar fact situation, benefit of bail has been extended to the accused persons by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as by this Court who have suffered incarceration of 2 years or more but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it just and proper to accept the instant bail application.

12. Thus, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that accused petitioner Ganpat Ram S/o Oghad Ram, arrested in [2025:RJ-JP:4756] (6 of 6) [CRLMB-12881/2024] connection with Case File No. VIII(IO)/17/NCB/JZU/2022 at Narcotics Control Bureau, Jodhpur shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. CHARU SONI /37 (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN), J