JUDGMENT : Alok Kumar Verma, J. Present Second Bail Application has been filed for grant of regular bail in connection with the Case Crime No.212 of 2019, registered at police station Lalkuan, District Nainital under Section 8/21/60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, “Act, 1985”). 2. First Bail Application (BA1 No.2787 of 2019) was rejected on 27.02.2020. 3. As per the case of the prosecution, Sub-Inspector Jagbir Singh, informant, was busy in patrolling duty along with other police personnel on 10.11.2019. Applicant came there on Scooty No.UK04-Z 2273 without a helmet. Applicant was apprehended by the police party. He was directed to show the papers of the scooty. Applicant opened the dikki of the scooty from which 1 Kg.720 grams Charas was recovered. In spite of an endeavour, no independent witness could be secured. Applicant was arrested at 18.35 hrs. 4. Heard Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel with Mr. Karan Singh Dugtal, leaned counsel for applicant and Mrs. Manisha Rana Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State. 5. This Court is informed by learned counsel for the parties that the charge-sheet was filed on 22.02.2020 and charge was framed on 06.03.2021. However, only two witnesses out of the six witnesses have been examined. 6. Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate contended that the applicant is an innocent person. Nothing was recovered from his scooty. Provision of Section 42 of the Act, 1985 was not followed. Applicant does not have any criminal antecedents. He is a permanent resident of District Nainital, therefore, there is no chance of his absconding. 7. Mrs. Manisha Rana Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the bail application. However, she has fairly conceded that only two witnesses have examined out of the six prosecution’s witnesses and the applicant has no criminal history. 8. Personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is a very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Applicant is in custody since 10.11.2019. Charge-sheet was filed on 22.02.2020, and, charge was framed on 06.03.2021. 9. 8. Personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is a very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Applicant is in custody since 10.11.2019. Charge-sheet was filed on 22.02.2020, and, charge was framed on 06.03.2021. 9. In Rabi Prakash vs. The State of Odisha, 2023 0 Supreme (SC) 707, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed; “The prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act.” 10. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no reason to keep the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period, therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage. 11. The Second Bail Application (No.64 of 2020) is allowed. 12. Applicant – Narayan Singh Bisht is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) Applicant shall attend the Trial Court regularly and he shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment; (ii) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case. (iii) Applicant shall not leave the country without previous permission of the Trial Court. 13. It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him, prosecution will be free to move the court for cancellation of bail.