JUDGMENT 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. 4. I have bestowed my most anxious and thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions. In view of principle of law propounded in Angrej Singh v. State of Raj., 1993 Cr. LR (Raj) 748 (DB) , the settled position of law is that the provisions of Art. 21 of the Constitution, namely, that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law are attracted even in the matters of bail and, therefore, accused facing trial for an offence punishable under the Act can be released on bail on the ground of delay in the trial in spite of limitations prescribed under Sec. 37(1) (b) of the Act. However, no guide-lines in the matter of granting bail can be formulated, the matter of granting bail being discretionary and such discretion is to be exercised fairly and judiciously, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case and delay involved in the trial. 5. However, no guide-lines in the matter of granting bail can be formulated, the matter of granting bail being discretionary and such discretion is to be exercised fairly and judiciously, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case and delay involved in the trial. 5. It is alleged that on 30-6-92, Constables Shyam Lal, Gopal, Giriraj and others, of P. S. Shambhoopura, District Chittorgarh while they were passing through Sayari forest in search of an accused in Crime No. 102/92 and 103/92, they noticed that three persons having bags with them were trying to run away. At that time, Mohan Sukhwal along with others came from Shambhoopura and apprehended those persons. However, one of them managed to escape after throwing his bag. The other two persons, who were apprehended by them were petitioners Onkar Lal and Mohan Lal, each having a bag with him. It is alleged that they disclosed that they were carrying contraband opium, therefore, those Constables brought them to the Police Station, Shamb Pioopura, where the Dy. S. P. was called because the S. H. O. was on leave and, the Dy. S.P. conducted the search of the petitioners Onkarlal and Mohanlal and, that from their possession 1.9 kg and 2.00 kg. of opium was recovered, for which they had no licence. Samples from the opium recovered from the petitioners were taken, seized, sealed and sent to the FSL and, after investigation challan was filed before the Magistrate who committed the case to learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh on 21-10-1992. Charges were framed on 11-11-1992. The petitioners denied indictment. 6. A perusal of the order-sheets of the file of the Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh reveals that he recorded the statements of PW. 1 and PW. 2 on 29-5-93, PW. 3 on 26-6-93 and PW. 4 on 27-1-1994. During this period, this case was fixed for hearing on as many as 24 dates but on most of dates excepting the dates when PW. 1 and PW. 4 were examined, the prosecution witnesses were not present and on many occasions, the Presiding Officer was also out of Station, but on those dates also no prosecution witness was present. Therefore, on 25-2-94 and 25-4-94 and, on 26 and 27-5-94, no prosecution witness was present. Thereafter this case was transferred to the file of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh on 13-6-94. Therefore, on 25-2-94 and 25-4-94 and, on 26 and 27-5-94, no prosecution witness was present. Thereafter this case was transferred to the file of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh on 13-6-94. On 25th, 27th and 28th June, 1994, 25th and 28th July, 1994; no prosecution witness was present. On 27-7-1994, the trial Judge ordered that this case be consolidated with case No. 89/94 (Mohan v. Deoji Gadri). On that day, the statement of PW. 5 was recorded and the case was fixed on 1-9-1994. Shri Charan submits that thereafter statement of one witness was recorded and now the case is fixed for 17-10-1994. He contends that by consolidating this case with another case (No. 89/94), now trial in this will further be dragged on unnecessarily and that till this date the report of the FSL has also not been received and it is, therefore, abundantly clear that in this case the prosecution has been throughout negligent and has not taken genuine efforts to produce the prosecution witnesses in this case, with the result the petitioners right for speedy trial has been effectively jeopardised. 7. In this case motbir witnesses, PW. 2 and 3, have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile. 8. Therefore, keeping in view.the aforementioned facts of this case and the fact that fundamental right of the petitioners having speedy trial has been violated, I feel that it is a fit case wherein the petitioners should be released on bail. 9. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and it is ordered that petitioners 1. Onkarlal son of Rupaji Nayak, resident of Chharliya, P. S. Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh and 2. Mohan Lal son of Jodha, Nayak, resident of Kanawatiya, P. S. Nimach, District - Mandsor (M. P.), be released on bail provided each one of them executes his personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with two sound and substantial sureties in the amount of Rs. 25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge (learned Addl. Sessions Judge, No. 1, Chittorgarh, NDPS Cases, for his regular appearance before the said Court on each and every date of hearing and whenever ordered to do so, in Sessions Case No. 73/94. 10. 25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge (learned Addl. Sessions Judge, No. 1, Chittorgarh, NDPS Cases, for his regular appearance before the said Court on each and every date of hearing and whenever ordered to do so, in Sessions Case No. 73/94. 10. Each one of the petitioners shall also furnish a written undertaking to the effect that he would keep peace and be of good behaviour and shall not commit offence punishable under NDPS Act.Petition allowed. *******