SHETHNA, J. - (1.) THE present accused petitioners are driver and owner of the truck respectively. THEy have been arrested on 23. 5. 1996 by the Intelligence Officer, Directorate Revenue Intelligence Department for the offence punishable inder Section 8/21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotrophic Substances Act (for short N. D. P. S. Act ). Alongwith the present accused Labh Singh, owner of the Smuggled `heroine' and other accused Harjeet Singh, Arvinder Singh and Mohd. Arshad were also arrested. Huge quantity of 53 Kg `heroine' was seized by the officer from the truck. Earlier accused Arvinder Singh filed misc. bail application No. 166/97 before this Court which was rejected by A. S. Godara, J. on 26. 2. 1997. While rejecting the same this Court observed that, -``however, since accused is in judicial custody for a quite pretty long time. THE learned trial Judge is directed that he should accord top priority to the case, expediting its disposal as early as possible. ''
(2.) THE present accused petitioners filed bail application No. 467/98 before the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner, who is also designated Judge under N. D. P. S. Act, for releasing them on bail on the ground that they have been falsely involved in the case and that since last two years they are in judicial custody and the prosecution has also examined 13 witnesses out of 21 cited in the charge sheet. THE said petition was objected by the other side on the ground that a serious allegation against accused for smuggling of `heroine' has been levelled and the bail application of co-accused Arvinder Singh was also rejected by the High Court, therefore, bail application be rejected. THE learned Judge has rejected the bail application on 6. 7. 98 by observing that,'' Esaus mhk; izd'ku dh cgl ij fopkj fd;k rfkk lelr rf;ksa dks ns[kk eqyfteku ds fo:) tks vkjksi gs] mls ns[krs gq, fo'ks"k :i ls tcr'kqnk fgjksbu dh ek= dks ns[krs gq, vfhk;qdrx. k dks tekur ij Nksm+uk mfpr ugha gsa vr% vfhk;qdrx. k@izkfkhzx. k dh vksj ls izlrqr tekur dk izkfkzuk i= [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksx; gksus ls [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gsa** Aggrieved by the aforesaid the petitioners have presented this bail application before this Court. On earlier occasion, learned counsel Shri Chaudhary for the petitioners was directed to produced the complete order-sheet of the trial Court proceedings which is produced today before the Court by Mr. Chaudhray. Mr. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the pre- sent petitioners are in judicial custody since 23. 5. 1996 and by now they have already remained in judicial custody for nearly two years and four months and still the trial is not over, therefore, relying upon the judgment of this Court (R. R. Yadav,j. in case of Kuldeep Singh vs. Union of India (1) and in case of Ruddu Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (2) Mr. Chaudhary submitted that the petitioners should be enlarged on bail. He further submitted that though this Court directed the trial Court on 26. 2. 1997 to give top priority to the case and expedite the same as early as possible, the trial is not over and out of 21 witnesses only 13 witnesses have been examined yet though they are their officers. Therefore, the accused be released on bail as the right to speedy trial of the accused is breached in this case in a most flagrant man- ner. However, learned counsel Shri Nahar for the respondent vehemently submitted that looking to the seriousness of the charge levelled against the petitioners and the fact that they have been found to have indulged in smuggling activities of contraband articles like `heroine'. They should not be released on bail on this ground, however, he conceeds that this is a case in which directions be issued to the trial Court to complete the trial as early as possible and in any case not later than 31. 12. 1998. He also assures this Court that prosecution will keep the witnesses present for recording their evidence so that the trial is over at the earliest. In Kuldeep Singh's case (supra) and Ruddu Singh's case (Supra) this Court released the accused on bail on the ground of protected trial and laches on the part of the prosecution. This Court was of the view that right of the accused to speedy trial was denied. In those cases, the accused were facing the charge for the offence under Section 8/18 of the N. D. P. S. Act. In those case, there was a gross delay of nearly 34 months. However, the aforesaid cases are distinguishable on facts of this case as a huge quantity of `heroin' running into crores of rupees was seized, there- fore, merely because the trial is not over so far though directed earlier by this Court on 26. 2. 1997 will not be a ground to automatically release the accused on bail. Particularly when out of 21 witnesses as many as 13 witnesses have already been examined.
(3.) HOWEVER, there is lot of substance in what Mr. Chaudhary has submitted that the trial Court and the learned Special Public Prosecutor both failed to discharge their duty to see to it that trial is over as early as possible as directed by this Court on 26. 2. 97. It appears from the order sheets of the trial Court that the approach of the learned Judge in this matter was a casual approach and he has not taken the Court's order dated 26. 2. 1997 passed in misc. bail application No. 166/97, seriously. If the witnesses were not remaining present then the Court must see to it that witnesses remain present first by issuing bailable warrant and then non-bailable warrant, but simply adjourning the case is not sufficient. In fact the special public prosecutor also failed to discharge his duty to keep the witnesses present particularly when they are officers of department itself. HOWEVER, on the assurance given by the learned counsel Shri Nahar that his counter part - special public prosecutor before the trial Court shall keep all the witnesses present and see to it that trial is over as per the hope expressed by this Court on 26. 2. 1997, the learned Judge is dir- ected to expedite the trial and dispose of the same as early as possible and in any case not later than 31. 12. 1998. Before parting, I must state that the approach of the learned Judge while disposing of the bail application was also casual. He has not even bothered to refer to the order passed by this Court on 26. 2. 1997, whereby, the trial was directed to expedite the trial as early as possible. It is hope and trust that the directions given in this order is complied with by both, the special public prosecutor before the trial Court and the trial Court itself in letter and spirit and the trial is over as early as possible and in any case not later than 31. 12. 1998. With these observations and directions, this bail application is disposed of. . ;