[1.0] RULE. Learned APP waives service of rule for the respondent-State.

[2.0] The present application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS") for regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11196027240204 of 2024 registered with Karelibaug Police Station, Vadodara, for the offences under Sections 8(c), 21(c), 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act.

[3.0] Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the offence. Investigation is over and chargesheet has been filed. Nothing is required to be recovered or discovered. Prosecution has cited 69 witnesses and upon calling for report from the concerned, trial Court, only one witness has been examined till March, 2026. He has no past antecedent. The applicant is in custody since 24.05.2024 and he was detained in the midnight and subsequently, he was framed in the offence and therefore, alleged raid was nothing, but it is an eyewash since nothing is found from conscious possession of the applicant. He therefore submits that, considering the nature of the offence, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.

[4.0] Learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has opposed the present application and requested to dismiss the present application for regular bail on the ground that the applicant is very much involved in the present offence and rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act is applicable since alleged contraband was found from residential premise of the applicant. Therefore, present application does not deserve consideration.

[5.0] While granting bail, the Court has to consider the involvement of the accused in the alleged offence, the jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of the well settled principles having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case and the following factors are to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail: (i) the nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses and threat to the complainant or the witnesses; (iii) reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; (iv) character behaviour and standing of the accused and the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; (v) larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations are required to be considered.

[6.0] I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the investigation papers. Following aspects have been considered:

          (1) Investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed;

          (2) Applicant is behind the bar since 24.05.2024.

          (3) There is nothing to be recovered or discovered from the applicant;

          (4) None of the offence alleged is punishable with life sentence or death penalty ;

          (5) No past antecedent ;

          (6) Obviously commencement and conclusion of trial will take its own time.

          (7) So far as two submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant i.e. frivolity of offence and falsely framed in the offence are concerned, it is a question of trial. However, the applicant is in jail since 24.05.2024. Thereafter, matter was transferred to learned Sessions Court and from 01.07.2025 upto 02.02.2026, though learned APP remained present, asked for adjournment for production of documents / list. From the report submitted by the learned Trial Court, it appears that till 02.02.2026, charge was not framed and thereafter, charge is framed in March, 2026. today only one panchwitness is in box and his chief examination is still going on. Considering the delay in trial though rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act is applicable, application deserves consideration on the ground of the fundamental right of the accused to a speedy trial. The prosecution cannot claim an absolute right to oppose the application while failing to commence the speedy trial . Obviously, the commencement and conclusion of the trial will take considerable time. Considering the manner in which the trial is going on, without discussing further on merit, application deserves consideration only on the ground of delay in trial.

          [15.0] Thus, it appears that prosecution is not interested to proceed with the matter and once prosecution is not inclined in expeditious disposal of the trial, prosecution has no right to oppose the bail application on merits considering the fundamental right of the accused. Therefore, applicant cannot be kept behind the bars for indefinite period even considering the question of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in (2021) 3 SCC 713; Mohd. Muslim alias Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352 and Pradeep Kumar @ Banu vs. State of Punjab [SLP (Cri.) No.18775/2025]. This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2012)1 SCC 40.

[7.0] This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in [2012]1 SCC 40 as well as in the case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in (1978)1 SCC 240. Obviously, the conclusion of trial will take time and keeping the accused behind the bars is nothing but amounts to pre-trial conviction and therefore, considering the celebrated principle of bail jurisprudence is that "bail is a rule and jail is exception" as well as the concept of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, present application deserves consideration.

[8.0] In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant in the FIR, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant on regular bail. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11196027240204 of 2024 registered with Karelibaug Police Station, Vadodara on executing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five Thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that he/she shall;

          (a) not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;

          (b) not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution & shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and shall not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police;

          (c) surrender passport, if any, to the Trial Court within a week;

          (d) not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Trial Court concerned;

          (e) mark presence before the concerned Police Station once in every month for a period of six months between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.;

          (f) furnish the Aadhaar card, email ID/present address of his residence to the Investigating Officer and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence/contact number without prior permission of Trial Court;

          (g) not to indulge in any illegal activity failing which learned trial Court shall issue warrant and cancel the bail of the applicant.

[9.0] The authorities will release the applicant only if he is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter.

[10.0] Bail bond to be executed before the lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions, in accordance with law.

[11.0] At the trial, the trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations of preliminary nature qua the evidence at this stage made by this Court while enlarging the applicant on bail.

[12.0] Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.