ORDER 1. This is IVth application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicant mainly on the ground of delay in the trial. 2. The applicant is arrested in connection with Crime No.178/2016 registered at Police Station Nanakheda, Distt. Ujjain (M.P.) under Sections 8/18, 21 of NDPS Act. 3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant is in jail for more than five years and 10 months. During this period, out of 18 witnesses only statement of seven witnesses have been recorded. He submits that the statements of seizure witnesses have been recorded and they have turned hostile. They have not supported the prosecution case. The applicant remained in custody for more than five years. The prosecution could not complete its evidence till this date. This Court in similar matters granted bail when the applicant remained in custody for more than five years. Reliance is placed on the orders passed in M.Cr.C No. 1701/2017 (Satyanarayan Vs. State of MP) decided on 10.04.2017 and M.Cr.C No.41578/2020 (Harpal Singh vs. State of MP) decided on 05.11.2020. It is submitted that Supreme Court in Prakash Dhaker Vs. State of MP passed in SLP (CRI) 1075/2017 dated 15.12.2017 opined as under:- " This is a case relating to an offence where the accused-petitioner is involved in N.D.P.S. Act holding some opium material. The High Court has rejected the bail of the petitioner. But the stand of the petitioner is that the police has picked up from his house and falsely implicated him and to support such contention, he is relied upon the Preliminary Inquiry Report dated 31-08-2012 given by the Officer which indicates prima facie support the case of the prosecution that he was picked up from house and the police has falsely implicated him. When the matter came up before us, we directed on 14-04-2017 to place the material and outcome of the said inquiry. Today, after adjournments, finally a Report dated 28- 02-2017 is placed which clearly shows that the said report is closed after the Supreme Court issued notice to the respondents and exonerating all the officers stating that the charges are not proved. Even though, we are not satisfied the way with which the inquiry was conducted, however, we are not concerned with that report for the purpose of considering the present bail application of the petitioner. Even though, we are not satisfied the way with which the inquiry was conducted, however, we are not concerned with that report for the purpose of considering the present bail application of the petitioner. In consideration the said fact apart from the fact that the petitioner has already suffered for the last five years in jail, it is a fit case for granting bail. Accordingly, the bail is granted to the petitioner subject to the conditions to be imposed by the Trial Court. Any observation made in this matter does not come in the way to decide the trial of the case." 4. Thus, on common ground relating to period of custody and snail's speed of trial, the bail is prayed for. 5. The prayer is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent/State. 6. Considering the period of custody and by taking into account the orders passed by this Court in aforesaid cases, I deem it proper to enlarge the applicant on bail because possibility of conclusion of trial in near future is also bleak in this pandemic era. Resultantly, the present petition stands allowed. 7. It is directed that the applicant Mohd.Shavez be released from custody on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rs. Three Lakhs) with one solvent surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the Trial Court as and when required. He shall abide by the conditions enumerated under section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.