JUDGMENT 1. - Heard. 2. Perused the challan papers as well as order-sheets. 3. This is fifth bail application. 4. From perusal of the record, it reveals that the accused-applicant is languishing in jail under Sec. 8/19, 23 arid 25 of the NDPS Act from 18.1.1989. More than 7 years and 3 months have expired but his trial has not been concluded as yet. Within the aforesaid period, only one witness has been examined by the prosecution agency and statement of another witness is continuing. 5. While rejecting the second bail application on 16.4.92, learned Single Judge of this Court has given a specific direction to the learned trial Judge to ensure a speedy trial of the accused-applicant. Learned Single Judge further gave direction on the aforesaid date to the learned trial Judge to try the applicant separately for the offences alleged against him and should not delay his trial awaiting the arrest of absconding co-accused persons. 6. Even after expiry of more than four years from the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court only one prosecution witness has been examined and statement of another witness is continuing. The learned Public Prosecutor is not able to inform this Court how many more years will be taken by the prosecution agency to get its remaining witnesses examined. 7. In the present case, irrespective of specific direction of this Court on 16.4.92 to conclude the trial expeditiously but it has not been concluded as yet and there appears to be no possibility of its conclusion in near future. There are catena of judgments of this Court that if trial is not concluded expeditiously then accused is entitled to be enlarged on bail [See 1996(1) RCD 16]. 8. The aforesaid state of affairs of the trial in the present case is pricking my judicial conscious. Speedy trial is being denied to the applicant for one reason or other. The present case is squarely covered by a latest decision taken by this Court in the case of Ruldu Singh v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Third Bail Application No. 286/96) decided on 11.4.1996 . 9. Learned Public Prosecutor is not in a position to defend the undue delay in producing the prosecution witnesses and assisting the court to conclude the trial against the accused-applicant expeditiously. 10. 9. Learned Public Prosecutor is not in a position to defend the undue delay in producing the prosecution witnesses and assisting the court to conclude the trial against the accused-applicant expeditiously. 10. It must be taken to be settled principle of law that concept of speedy trial is applicable to all those cases triable under the NDPS Act. 11. Thus, in the present case, I am fully satisfied that the trial of the present accused-applicant is being delayed beyond reasonable time, therefore, I consider it just and proper to enlarge the applicant Prittam Singh on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- together with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Sri Ganganagar for his appearance in the trial Court on each and every date of hearing or whenever called upon to do so till the final disposal of the trial.The accused-applicant shall not be allowed to go abroad without leave of the learned trial Judge. *******