YADAV, J. - (1.) THE accused applicant is facing trial for the offences under Sections 8/15 and 19 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred as 'ndps Act') before the learned Sessions Judge Pratapgrh functioning as Special Judge under the said Act. THE accused applicant is behind the bars since 21. 9. 92. It is alleged against the accused applicant by the prosecution that he was driving a truck carrying poppy husk.
(2.) THIS is a second bail application in the aforesaid case. The accused applicant's first S. B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 245 of 1995 was moved after statement of PW 1 to PW 5 were recorded by the learned trial court. Out of them the motbirs witnesses were declared hostile. The learned Single Judge of this Court while rejecting the first bail application of the accused applicant on 15. 2. 95 observed that since the learned trial Judge was taking effective measures to ensure the attendance of the remaining prosecution witnesses and had even issued bailable warrant against Shri K. L. Sharma, District Opium Officer, therefore keeping in view the evidence recorded upto the stage of the rejection of the first bail application he was not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. It is further evident from the perusal of the rejection of first bail application by the learned Single Judge of this Court that after overall assessment of the progress of the trial of the case he directed the prosecution to produce all the remaining prosecution witnesses and got them examined within a period of three months from the date of rejection of the first bail application i. e. 15. 2. 1995. The learned Single Judge of this court further directed the learned trial Judge to dispose-off the case against the accused applicant within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of the copy of his order. Indisputably irrespective of the aforesaid direction of the learned single Judge of this Court on 15. 2. 95 even after expiry of more than 9 months neither prosecution has produced all the remaining witnesses and got them examined until now nor the learned trial Judge has disposed of the case against the accused applicant. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant Shri Sandeep Mehta and Shri J. P. Joshi appearing on behalf of the prosecution at length and perused the material available on record.
(3.) THE main thrust of the argument of learned counsel for the accused applicant before me is that the accused applicant is in detention for more than 3 years but irrespective of specific direction of this Court neither the prosecution has produced all the remaining prosecution witnesses and got them examined until now nor the learned trial Judge has disposed off the case. According to the learned counsel for the accused applicant the prosecution is deliberately not producing the prosecution witnesses and as such the applicant's right for speedy trial is being violated. It is next contended on behalf of the accused applicant that the accused applicant cannot be kept indefinitely in custody for the latches on the part of the prosecution specially when there was direction by this Court for the prosecution to produce the remaining witnesses and got them examined within three months from the date of the order. According to Shri Mehta, learned counsel for the accused applicant a direction was also given by this Court to learned trial Judge to dispose off the case within 120 days from the date of receipt of a copy of his order but the case has not been disposed off as yet. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused applicant strenuously urged before me that the non-observance of the direction of this Court dated 15. 2. 95 is a matter which is to be seriously viewed. ;