SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS BA5 No.2 of 2026 Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. Mr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for applicant. 2. Mr. J.S. Virk, learned D.A.G. with Mr. R.K. Joshi, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. The present Fifth Bail Application has been moved by Applicant-Rajendra Mewari “Raju” aged about 19 years, S/o Shri Late Dev Singh Mawari, R/o Village Kalaagar P.S. Khansu, District Nainital, who is in judicial custody in connection with FIR No.01 of 2024 dated 02.01.2024, registered at Police Station Khansu, District Nainital, under Sections 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 4. It is pertinent to mention that the applicant’s 1st Bail Application No.1670 of 2024, 2nd Bail Application No.85 of 2025, 3rd Bail Application No.36 of 2025 and 4th Application No.14 of 2025 were rejected by this Court on 26.03.2025, 05.06.2025, 07.07.2025 and 19.09.2025 respectively. 5. In the present fifth bail application, application seeks enlargement on the ground of prolonged incarceration of almost two years coupled with the contention that no material prosecution witness has been examined to date. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. Learned counsel for applicant submits that over 417 days have elapsed since the first date fixed for evidence i.e. 22.11.2024 2 and the prosecution has failed to examine even the first witness and the dates are given beyond 15 days, which is a clear violation of Section 309 Cr.P.C. (346 B.N.S.S.), which mandates the power to postpone or adjourn proceeding maximum for 15 days, thus, the judicial custody of applicant is illegal and against the law. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant placed a reliance upon a judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in 2021 3 SCC 713, wherein, it is held that in cases where timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, the Court would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge the accused on bail regardless of statutory restrictions imposed on right to bail by relevant provisions. 9. On the other hand, learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the fifth bail application contending that the offence committed by the applicant is grave and falls within the category of commercial quantity under the NDPS Act. 10. In the present case, this particular judgment is applicable because it clarifies that even with stringent bail conditions like those under UAPA Constitutional Courts can grant bail relying on Article 21 of the Constitution of India i.e. Right to speedy trial in the cases where the trial is delayed. This allows the Courts to balance severe restrictions against the right to a speedy trial, which is relevant for granting bail in NDPS cases particularly in cases where delays occur. 3 11. Considering facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, this Court is of the view that the Applicant deserves to be released on bail at this stage. 12. Accordingly, the fifth bail application is allowed. 13. Let the Applicant-Rajendra Mewari “Raju”, be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of Court concerned. 14. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (Ashish Naithani, J.) Vacation Judge 16.01.2026 PN