HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Third Bail Application No.76 of 2024 Afzal Ahmad ….....Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. Lalit Miglani, Advocate for the applicant. Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, Deputy Advocate General for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Applicant is in judicial custody in Case Crime No.0931 of 2022, under Sections 8/22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Gangnehar, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. This is the third bail application of the applicant. The first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn on 06.03.2024 and the second bail application was rejected on 10.05.2024. 4. According to the FIR, the narcotic substance in commercial quantity has been recovered from the possession of the applicant on 23.11.2022. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is in custody for a long; he was 2 arrested on 23.11.2022; the charge-sheet was filed in the matter on 27.04.2023; charges were framed on 11.05.2023. The last witness PW4 was examined on 22.05.2024, but the trial has yet not concluded. Nothing has happened since thereafter. 6. These factual aspects are admitted by the learned State Counsel. 7. It is a case pertaining to recovery of commercial quantity of the narcotic substance and in such cases, Section 37 of the Act makes specific provisions. Bail in such cases may not be granted, unless the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. But, denial of bail does not give unfettered liberty to the prosecution to keep a person in custody without conducting a trial. 8. The applicant is in custody for more than a year. In between, for more than six months, no progress was made in the case. The trial has yet not concluded. It commands the Court to release the applicant on bail. 3 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 her executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 08.01.2025 Ravi