JUDGMENT : P.K. LOHRA, J. 1. Instant second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is laid on behalf of accused- petitioner, Babulal @ Rohit, who was apprehended pursuant to investigation into FIR No. 40/2014, registered at Police Station Desuri, District Pali, for offence punishable under Section 8 read with Section 15 of the NDPS Act. 2. Petitioner was apprehended on 29th of March 2014 and since then he is under incarceration. First bail application on behalf of petitioner bearing No. 7261/2017 was rejected on 12th of September, 2017 with the observation that trial Court is expected to proceed with trial and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible. 3. Espousing cause of the petitioner for grant of bail, it is submitted by learned counsel Mr. M.L. Bishnoi that so far there is no material progress in the trial inasmuch as only two prosecution witnesses are examined. It is also submitted that prosecution has cited forty witnesses, and therefore, conclusion of trial is not in offing in near future. Learned counsel further submits that despite the observation made by Court while rejecting first bail application, the trial Court has not taken care to expedite the trial. Learned counsel further submits that besides the present case, there is no other criminal antecedent of the petitioner showing his involvement in a case for offence under the NDPS Act. To substantiate his arguments for grant of bail, learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of Supreme Court in the matter of Thana Singh vs. Central Bureau of Narcotics, (2013) 2 SCC 590 . 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. Chhaparwal, has vehemently opposed the bail application. It is submitted by learned Public Prosecutor that huge quantity of contraband (poppy straw) weighing 700 Kgs. was recovered from the petitioner, and therefore, the recovered contraband being umpteen times higher than commercial quantity, rigor of Section 37 of the Act is clearly attracted. When confronted on delayed trial, learned Public Prosecutor has not tendered any satisfactory explanation, nor the same is forthcoming. 5. Taking into account all these facts and more significantly a vital fact that conclusion of trial is not in sight in near future, I am of the view that keeping the petitioner in custody any more would be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 5. Taking into account all these facts and more significantly a vital fact that conclusion of trial is not in sight in near future, I am of the view that keeping the petitioner in custody any more would be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Article 21 of the Constitution of India envisages that an accused has every right of fair and speedy trial. The period of incarceration, which is above five years, is a cause of concern, more particularly, in the wake of the fact that there is no material progress in trial. 6. In view thereof, while refraining to make any comment on merits of the case, I feel persuaded to accept this second bail application. 7. Accordingly, this second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that accused-petitioner, Babulal @ Rohit S/o Narayan Ram, arrested in connection with F.I.R. No. 40/2014 of Police Station Desuri, District Pali, may be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- with two surety bonds of Rs. 1,00,000/- each, including one local surety, to the satisfaction of learned trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.