IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MPM No. 1655 of 2025 Date of Decision: 5.8.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Jeeva Nand @ Jiva Nand ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Panku Chaudhary, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General withMr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of present bail application filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, prayer has been made by the bail petitioner for grant of regular bail in respect of FIR No. 76 of 2023, dated 30.3.2023 under Sections 20 and 25 of the NDPS Act, registered at PS Sadar, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Respondent-State has filed status report and HC Lakinder Singh, has come present with record. 3. Before adverting to the factual matrix of the case, prayer for grant of bail has been made on the ground of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial. It is claimed in the petition that bail petitioner is behind bars since 2 30.3.2023, but till date, learned trial court has not been able to conclude the trial, as a result thereof, freedom of the bail petitioner is being curtailed for indefinite period, which is not permissible under law. However, having carefully perused status report as well as record made available to this Court, this court finds that out of 24 prosecution witnesses, 23 witnesses have been already examined and now only one witness i.e. I.O. remains to be examined, for which purpose, trial court has already fixed the date on 5.9.2025. 4. Though Mr. Panku Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently argued that since it took almost two years for the respondents to examine the 23 prosecution witnesses, considerable time is likely to be consumed in recording the statements of last prosecution witness, but this Court is not persuaded to accept the afore submission of Mr. Chaudhary, for the reason that court below has already fixed the date on 15.9.2025, for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that in any eventuality, I.O. shall be examined on date fixed by the trial court. Since on account of afore facts, trial is likely to be concluded shortly, prayer made by the petitioner for grant of bail on account of inordinate delay in conclusion of the trial, is not tenable. 3 5. Faced with aforesaid situation, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present petition at this stage with liberty to file afresh at appropriate stage, if required and desired. Ordered accordingly. Having taken note of the fact that 23 prosecution witnesses out of 24 PWs have already been examined and court below has already fixed the matter for 5.9.2025, this Court hopes and trusts that all out efforts shall be made by the court below to conclude the trial expeditiously preferably on or before 31.10.2025, failing which this Court shall have no option, but to consider prayer made by the petitioner for grant of regular bail on account of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial. Needless to say, this Court on judicial as well as administrative sides, has been repeatedly advising the courts below to conclude the trial of under trials on top most priority so that their freedom is not curtailed for an indefinite period. Registry is directed to apprise the court below with regard to passing of the instant order. August 5, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge