ORDER : GANESH RAM MEENA, J. 1. This second bail application is filed by the accused petitioner u/s 483 BNSS in connection with Complaint No. VIII(IO)06/NCB/ASU/2022, registered at Special Judge, NDPS Cases and Addl. Session Judge No. 1, Kekri, District Ajmer for offences punishable under Section 8, 15(C), 25, 27(a), read with Section 29 of NDPS Act. Later on Section 8/15(C), 8/25, 27(C), 8/28 and 8/29 of NDPS Act were added. 2. The first bail application bearing No. 1034/2024 filed by the accused petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 10.10.2024 with liberty to the petitioner to file fresh bail application before the trial Court on the basis of the version of the prosecution witnesses examined till then. 3. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the accused-petitioner is in custody since 02.11.2022. She further submits that no recovery on any contraband was made from the possession of the accused petitioner. She also submits that seizure memo was prepared at the police station as is evident from the statements of PW 1, whereas officers of the Narcotics Department were required to prepare the seizure memo at the place where the contraband is said to have been recovered. 4. Counsel further submits that the accused-petitioner was arrested in this matter on 02.11.2022 and charges for the alleged offences have been framed against him on 13.07.2023. The accused-petitioner is in custody for more than two and a half years and till date only two out of total 12 prosecution witnesses have been examined. She also submits that the version of the two prosecution witnesses which have been examined so far also goes in favour of the accused-petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides for right of speedy trial and in the present case even though the accused-petitioner is in custody for more than two and a half years, only 2 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far and other prosecution witnesses are not turning up even after repeated orders of the trial Court and issuance of bailable warrants for ensuring presence of the prosecution witnesses. 6. 6. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the Narcotics Department opposed the bail application and submits that the contraband recovered from the possession of the accused petitioner is more than the commercial quantity and the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail in view of the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 7. Considered the submissions made at bar and also perused the material made available on record. 8. It is not in dispute that the accused petitioner was arrested on 02.11.2022 and charges against him were framed on 13.07.2023 for offences punishable under Section 8/15(C), 8/25, 8/28 & 8/29 of NDPS Act and the accused-petitioner is in custody for last more than two and a half years and out of total 12 prosecution witnesses only two have been examined so far. 9. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement (in Criminal Appeal No.----/2024) arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 8781/2024 decided on 09.08.2024 has observed as follows:- "34. In this respect, we may also gainfully refer to one of the recent pronouncements by a bench of this Court to which one of us (B.R. Gavai, J.) was a member in the case of Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) which reads thus: “21. The Right to Life and Personal Liberty is the most sacrosanct fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 20, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. Any attempt to encroach upon this fundamental right has been frowned upon by this Court in a catena of decisions. In this regard, we may refer to following observations made by this Court in the case of Roy V.D. v. State of Kerala:— “7. The life and liberty of an individual is so sacrosanct that it cannot be allowed to be interfered with except under the authority of law. It is a principle which has been recognised and applied in all civilised countries. In our Constitution Article 21 guarantees protection of life and personal liberty not only to citizens of India but also to aliens.”” 38. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ramkripal Meena v. Directorate of Enforcement was considering an application of the petitioner therein who was SLP (Crl.) No. 3205 of 2024 dated 30.07.2024 to receive a bribe of rupees five crore and from whom, an amount of Rs.46,00,000/- was already recovered. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ramkripal Meena v. Directorate of Enforcement was considering an application of the petitioner therein who was SLP (Crl.) No. 3205 of 2024 dated 30.07.2024 to receive a bribe of rupees five crore and from whom, an amount of Rs.46,00,000/- was already recovered. In the said case, the petitioner was arrested on 26th January 2022 in connection with FIR No. 402/2021 registered against him for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120B of IPC and Section 4/6 of the Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1992. He was released on bail by this Court vide order dated 18th January 2023. Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested by the ED on 21st June 2023. The Court observed thus: “7. Adverting to the prayer for grant of bail in the instant case, it is pointed out by learned counsel for ED that the complaint case is at the stage of framing of charges and 24 witnesses are proposed to be examined. The conclusion of proceedings, thus, will take some reasonable time. The petitioner has already been in custody for more than a year. Taking into consideration the period spent in custody and there being no likelihood of conclusion of trial within a short span, coupled with the fact that the petitioner is already on bail in the predicate offence, and keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it seems to us that the rigours of Section 45 of the Act can be suitably relaxed to afford conditional liberty to the petitioner. Ordered accordingly.” 10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narcotics Control Bureau Vs. Lakhwinder Singh, Criminal Appeal No. 475/2025 decided on 29.01.2025 has observed as follows:- "......While dealing with an extraordinary situation arising out of the long incarceration of undertrial prisoners, this Court directed that in certain cases, the prisoners shall be released on bail after they complete a certain period of imprisonment. The directions issued were by way of a one-time measure. This judgment does not take away the power of the Court to grant regular bail even if the period undergone by a prisoner is less than what is provided in the said judgment. The judgment of this Court cannot be read to mean that the powers of the Court to grant bail have been curtailed. This judgment does not take away the power of the Court to grant regular bail even if the period undergone by a prisoner is less than what is provided in the said judgment. The judgment of this Court cannot be read to mean that the powers of the Court to grant bail have been curtailed. If we interpret the judgment of this Court in such a manner, the Courts will be powerless to grant bail or relief of suspension of sentence even if a case is made out on merits. Therefore, in our view, if a case is made out for the grant of suspension of sentence and/or bail in deserving cases on merits, the Court is not powerless to grant relief of suspension of sentence and bail pending an appeal, even if an accused has not undergone half of the sentence. There cannot be a rule of thumb that a convict cannot be released on bail pending an appeal against conviction unless he has undergone half of substantive sentence. 6. In the case of fixed-term sentences, if the Courts start adopting a rigid approach, in a large number of cases, till the appeal reaches the stage of the final hearing, the accused would undergo the entire sentence. This will be a violation of the rights of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution. Moreover, it will defeat the right of appeal. 7. At this stage, the learned ASG appearing for the petitioner submitted that the power of the Court was constrained by Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which is applicable even at the stage of an appeal. He relies upon a decision of this Court in the case of Dadu vs. State of Maharashtra, (2000) 8 SCC 437 . There is no dispute about the fact that the Appellate Court is bound by constraints of Section 37 of the NDPS Act while considering the prayer for the grant of bail during the pendency of an appeal. However, if, in the facts of the case, an accused has undergone a substantial part of the substantive sentence and, considering the pendency of criminal appeals, his appeal is not likely to be heard before the accused undergoes the entire sentence, the Appellate Court can exercise the power of releasing the accused on bail pending the appeal. However, if, in the facts of the case, an accused has undergone a substantial part of the substantive sentence and, considering the pendency of criminal appeals, his appeal is not likely to be heard before the accused undergoes the entire sentence, the Appellate Court can exercise the power of releasing the accused on bail pending the appeal. If the relief of bail is denied in such a factual situation only on the grounds of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, it will amount to the violation of the rights of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India." 11. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case so also the statements of two prosecution witnesses examined so far and more particularly the fact that incarceration of the accused petitioner is more than two and a half years and only two witnesses out of total 12 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far, this Court, in view of the observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments cited above, without expressing any opinion on merits or demerits of the case, deems just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 12. Accordingly, this second bail application is allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner shall be released on bail provided that he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only), together with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) to the satisfaction of the Trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court or any Court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.