JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. Heard Mr. R. Desai, learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr. P. Faldessai, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 2. This is an application for bail. The applicant was arrested on 6/4/2018 in respect of Crime No. 8 of 2018 registered at Anti Narcotic Cell Police Station, Panaji Goa for the offence punishable under Sec. 22 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Trial is pending in the Special Criminal Case (NDPS) No. 36 of 2018 before the Principal Sessions Judge, North Goa, Panaji. The applicant who was found in possession of 20 gms of MDMA. The commercial quantity prescribed for under the said Act is 10 gms and above. The applicant was thus found in possession of commercial quantity. The learned counsel for the applicant has mainly urged that the applicant is entitled for bail on the ground of long incarceration. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mohd. Muslim alias Hussain Vs State(NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC Online Sc 352. Paragraphs 2 and 3 read thus:- 2 Long back, in Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secy., State of Bihar 1 this court had declared that the right to speedy trial of offenders facing criminal charges is "implicit in the broad sweep and content of Article 21 as interpreted by this Court". Remarking that a valid procedure under Article 21 is one which contains a procedure that is "reasonable, fair and just" it was held that: "Now obviously procedure prescribed by law for depriving a person of liberty cannot be "reasonable, fair or just" unless that procedure ensures a speedy trial for determination of the guilt of such person. No procedure which does not ensure a reasonably quick trial can be regarded as "reasonable, fair or just" and it would fall foul of Article 21. There can, therefore, be no doubt that speedy trial, and by speedy trial we mean reasonably expeditious trial, is an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21. There can, therefore, be no doubt that speedy trial, and by speedy trial we mean reasonably expeditious trial, is an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21. The question which would, however, arise is as to what would be the consequence if a person accused of an offence is denied speedy trial and is sought to be deprived of his liberty by imprisonment as a result of a long delayed trial in violation of his fundamental right under Article 21." 3. These observations have resonated, time and again, in several judgments, such as Kadra Pahadiya v. State of Bihar 2 and Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak 3; in the latter the court re-emphasized the right to speedy trial, and further held that an accused, facing prolonged trial, has no option: < WXY>"The State or complainant prosecutes him. It is, thus, the obligation of the State or the complainant, as the case may be, to proceed with the case with reasonable promptitude. Particularly, in this country, where the large majority of accused come from poorer and weaker Sec. of the society, not versed in the ways of law, where they do not often get competent legal advice, the application of the said rule is wholly inadvisable. Of course, in a given case, if an accused demands speedy trial and yet he is not given one, may be a relevant factor in his favour. But we cannot disentitle an accused from complaining of infringement of his right to speedy trial on the ground that he did not ask for or insist upon a speedy trial." 3. It would then be material to refer to paragraph 17 which reads thus:- 17 In the most recent decision, Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation 16 prolonged incarceration and inordinate delay engaged the attention of the court, which considered the correct approach towards bail, with respect to several enactments, including Sec. 37 NDPS Act. The court expressed the opinion that Sec. 436A 17 (which requires inter alia the accused to be enlarged on bail if the trial is not concluded within specified periods) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 would apply: "We do not wish to deal with individual enactments as each special Act has got an objective behind it, followed by the rigour imposed. The general principle governing delay would apply to these categories also. To make it clear, the provision contained in Sec. 436-A of the Code would apply to the Special Acts also in the absence of any specific provision. For example, the rigour as provided under Sec. 37 of the NDPS Act would not come in the way in such a case as we are dealing with the liberty of a person. We do feel that more the rigour, the quicker the adjudication ought to be. After all, in these types of cases number of witnesses would be very less and there may not be any justification for prolonging the trial. Perhaps there is a need to comply with the directions of this Court to expedite the process and also a stricter compliance of Sec. 309 of the Code."</ WXY> 4. In the present case, the applicant is incarcerated for more than five years. So far as the trial is concerned, it is informed that five witnesses have been examined and as many as 17 witnesses are yet to be examined. 5. Mr. P. Faldessai, learned Addl Public Prosecutor opposed the application for bail. In his submission, the facts of the present case do not justify enlargement of the applicant on bail. He submitted that at the highest the trial be expedited. 6. In my opinion, taking an over all view of the matter, as there are no criminal antecedents reported against the applicant and that the applicant is in custody for more than five years pending trial and that the there is no possibility of trial being concluded soon, this is a fit case where the applicant can be enlarged on bail looking into overall facts and circumstances. The applicant does not have any criminal antecedents. It is not possible to infer at this juncture that the applicant is likely to commit the offence of a similar in nature in future. The application can be allowed by imposing stringent conditions. The application is allowed on the following terms:- < WXY>ORDER a. The applicant shall be enlarged on bail upon he furnishing a PR bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000.00 with one or two surety/sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Principal District Judge, Panaji. b. The applicant shall not leave State of Goa without permission of the Trial Court. b. The applicant shall not leave State of Goa without permission of the Trial Court. c. The applicant shall furnish details of his residential address and all contact details along with mobile number to the Trial Court as well as to the Investigating Officer. The applicant shall inform about any change in residential address or contact details to the Trial Court as well as to the Investigating Officer. d. The applicant shall report to the Anti Narcotic Cell Police Station, Panaji Goa on every alternate Saturday of the month commencing from July 2023, between 10.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon, till the completion of trial. e. The applicant shall attend the hearing of the Trial Court regularly. f. The Applicant shall not indulge in any activity that would amount to tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses.</ WXY> 7. Application for bail stands disposed of.