Rajendra Saxena, J. - (1.) Heard, Perused the challan papers, the order-sheets from file of the trial Court as also the statements of PW. 1 to PW. 5, recorded by learned Sessions Judge.
(2.) The only contention of Shri R. K. Charan, learned counsel for the petitioners is that in the case on hand, the petitioners were arrested on 30-6-92 and since then they are in detention, that the trial of this case is proceeding with snails pace and that despite ample opportunities, the prosecution did not produce its witnesses and on umpteen dates, the Presiding Officer was out of Station. He contends that his fundamental right to speedy trial has been violated by the inaction of the prosecution and, as such, petitioners should be released on bail.
(3.) Shri S. M. Singhvi, learned P. P. has stoutly opposed this on the ground that since the Presiding Officer was not present on many dates, the proceedings in this case have been delayed and for that, the prosecution cannot be blamed. According to him, keeping in view the specific provisions of Sec. 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 (in short the Act), the petitioners do not deserve to be enlarged on bail.;