Order : FARJAND ALI, J. 1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing the instant bail applications under Section 439 CrPC at the instance of accused-petitioners. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below: S.No. Particulars of the Case 1 FIR Number 125/2023 2 Concerned Police Station Sadar 3. District Hanumangarh 4. Offences alleged in the FIR Section 8/15 & 25 of the NDPS Act 5. Offences added, if any Section 8/29 of the NDPS Act 6. Date of passing of impugned order (SBCRLM3rd BNo.15611/2024) 18.10.2024 6.A Date of passing of impugned order (SBCRLM3rd BNo.14758/2024) 16.11.2024 2. The concise facts of the case as alleged in the FIR are that the Gagandeep @ Guggu and Mangi Lal came to be arrested in this case for around two years in connection with recovery of 100 Kg poppy husk (in five bags) from the dickey of an unnumbered Hundai Car. The first & second bail applications being SBCRLMB No.13717/2024 & 6385/2024 (Dinesh Ram) were dismissed by this Court vide orders dated 24.01.2024 & 30.07.2024 and SBCRLMB Nos.10668/2023 & 14385/2023 (Mangi Lal) were dismissed by this Court vide orders dated 04.10.2023 & 24.01.2024. While rejecting the earlier bail applications this Court granted liberty to the petitioners to renew the prayer for bail after recording the statements of Seizing Officer and Investigating Officer. Hence, the instant bail applications. 3. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioners that no case for the alleged offences is made out against them and their incarceration is not warranted. They submit that the contraband was recovered on 20.04.2023 and petitioners have been behind bars since a very long period and the trial is progressing at a very slow pace. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused-petitioners and they have been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises. 4. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail applications and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail. 5. I have heard and considered the submissions made by both the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. 4. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail applications and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail. 5. I have heard and considered the submissions made by both the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Perusal of the record revealing that on 20.04.2023, Lakhveer Singh, Station House Officer, Police Station Sadar Hanumangarh, intercepted the accused persons, namely Gagandeep Singh alias Gaggu and Mangilal, near the UTS culvert on the public road from Uttamsinghwala to Subhanwala. Upon search, from the rear seat of a white unregistered Hyundai Verna car, two black plastic bags, and from the car's trunk, three black bags were recovered. Each of the five bags contained 20 kilograms of poppy husk (chhilka doda post), totaling 1 quintal (100 kilograms), which was seized. The case is under investigation for the alleged recovery. During interrogation under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, accused Gagandeep alias Gaggu disclosed that on his request co-accused/petitioner Dinesh alias Dinesh Ram brought the poppy husk in a white Scorpio vehicle at around 5:00 AM the same day and delivered five bags (totaling one quintal) of the contraband to him. On the basis of confessional statement made by principal accused Dinesh @ Dinesh Ram is also booked as accused in this case. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner/accused Dinesh alias Dinesh Ram for serious offences under Sections 8/15, 25, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 . The quantity of the seized narcotic substance is of a commercial nature. 7. It is revealing from the record that till date out of total 26 witnesses, statements of only 4 witnesses have been recorded in the trial. Besides the delay in trial, the petitioner has an arguable case in respect of non-compliance of the mandatory provisions and flouting of the Standing Orders 1/1989 issued by the Central Govt. with regard to seizure, sampling of the contraband and in my view, if the same would be adjudicated in favour of the petitioner, he may get acquittal. Besides the delay in trial, the petitioner has an arguable case in respect of non-compliance of the mandatory provisions and flouting of the Standing Orders 1/1989 issued by the Central Govt. with regard to seizure, sampling of the contraband and in my view, if the same would be adjudicated in favour of the petitioner, he may get acquittal. Of course, there is a fetter under Section 37 of the NDPS Act regarding grant of bail to an accused having illegal possession of commercial quantity of contraband but a fundamental right of speedy trial to him cannot be permitted to be flouted. When there appears conflict between the statutory provision and the fundamental right then this Court is of the view that a protection of fundamental right should be given preference over the statutory bar in granting bail. If other surrounding factors align in consonance with the statutory stipulations, the personal liberty of an individual can not encroached upon by keeping him behind the bars for an indefinite period of time pending trial. 8. It is well-nigh settled law that at pre-conviction stage, bail is a rule and denial of the same should be an exception. The purpose for keeping an accused behind the bars during trial would be to secure his presence on the day of conviction and to ensure that he may receive the sentence as would be awarded to him otherwise, as stated above, it is the rule of crimnal jurisprudence that he shall be presumed innocent until his guilt is proved. In the instant case, it has been around two and half years have elapsed since the accused was sent to jail and his rights and liberties are getting stifled as he is being kept incarcerated without any progress in the trial. An accused cannot be kept behind bars as an undertrial for an indefinite period. A detailed order dated 27.08.2022 has been passed in this regard by this Court in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 12906/2022 titled Suraj Vs. State of Rajasthan wherein it has been emphasized that the right of the accused to get a speedy trial is an inalienable fundamental right under Article 21 of Constitution of India. 9. In Rabi Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan wherein it has been emphasized that the right of the accused to get a speedy trial is an inalienable fundamental right under Article 21 of Constitution of India. 9. In Rabi Prakash Vs. State of Odisha passed in Special leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s) 4169/2023 , Hon’ble the Apex Court has again passed an order dated 13th July, 2023 dealing this issue and has held that the provisional liberty(bail) overrides the prescribed impediment in the statute under Section 37 of the NDPS Act as liberty directly hits one of the most precious fundamental rights envisaged in the Constitution, that is, the right to life and personal liberty contained in Article 21. 10. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that petitioners are behind the bars for around two years thus, looking to the fact that there is high probability that the trial may take long time to conclude, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner. 11. Accordingly, the instant bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C . are allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioners as named in the cause title shall be enlarged on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance before the Court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.