IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.MP(M) No. 123 of 2025 Decided on: 13.05.2025 ____________________________________________________ Bhagmal ……….. petitioner Versus State of H.P. ……….respondent ____________________________________________________ Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner. : Mr. Vinod Kumar Verma, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Raj Kumar Negi, Additional Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) FIR in the case at hand bearing No. 75/2023 is dated 25.06.2023. The same has been registered under Sections 20 and 18 of the ND&PS Act, 1985 at Police Station Patlikuhal, District Kullu H.P. The quantity involved in the case at hand is a commercial quantity. Total contraband weights about 2 kg 300 gram of charas and 838 grams of opium. 2. Challan in the case at hand was filed on 29th August, 2023. Thereafter the charges were framed. Total witnesses to be examined in the case at hand are 14, out of which, five have been examined. The petitioner has been in custody since 25.06.2023. The matter is now posted for examination of three witnesses on 7.7.2025. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. The sole contention urged on behalf of the petitioner is with respect to his prolonged incarceration and inordinate delay in progress of his trial. 4. Grant of bail on ground of undue delay in trial cannot be said to be fettered by Section 37 of the ND&PS Act given the imperative of Sections 436A of the Erstwhile Criminal Procedure Code. (See (2022) 10 SCC 51 titled as Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation). 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, this Court is of the opinion that in the facts of the case (commercial quantity, no prima facie case being made out from the material on record that the bail petitioner is not guilty), bail petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on bail at this stage. However, it is noticed from a perusal of the order sheets of the trial Court that despite listing of the matter on 09.09.2024, 16.12.2024 and 01.04.2025, no prosecution witnesses have been examined on the said dates. Conspicuous by absence, in these orders are the reasons for non-production of the witnesses summoned for the said dates. In the aforesaid circumstances, it be ensured that on the next date (subsequent dates) fixed for recording of evidence prosecution witnesses be produced and examined. 3 6. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge May 13, 2025 tarun