ORDER : FARJAND ALI, J. 1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 439 CrPC at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below: S.No. Particulars of the Case 1. FIR Number 281/2023 2. Concerned Police Station Pindwara 3. District Sirohi 4. Offences alleged in the FIR Sections 8 /15, 25 & 29 of the NDPS Act 5. Offences added, if any - 6. Date of passing of impugned order 18.10.2024 2. The concise facts of the case are that as per the First Information Report, on 26.08.2023 at 11:30 A.M., a pink-coloured car (RJ19-GD- 6834) with tarpaulin-covered truck (GJ09 BF-0719) proceeding at high speed from Udaipur was intercepted. On being stopped, the occupants of the vehicles appeared visibly nervous. Shortly thereafter, the driver of a truck slowed down, identifying himself as Safi Khan, whereupon other occupants of both vehicles attempted to abscond. 2.1. On interrogation, the individual seated beside the truck driver disclosed the name of the person who fled as Sarif. The person on the driver’s seat of the car identified himself as Anwar Khan (accused/unknown); the truck driver gave his name as Safi Khan; and the person seated in the helper’s seat as Sadiq Khan. Upon noticing the police party, they panicked. A Motbiran was appointed in accordance with law and both vehicles were searched. 2.2. When questioned about the goods concealed inside the wheels of the car, no satisfactory explanation was furnished. Though no contraband was recovered from the car, it was disclosed that the car was being used as an escort vehicle for the truck. On searching the truck (RJ19-GD-6834), it was found loaded with poppy husk concealed in 15 plastic cans beneath sacks of white powder. On weighing, the contraband was found to be 3 quintals and 2 kilograms. Samples were drawn and seizure proceedings conducted in accordance with procedure. 2.3. During interrogation, the accused admitted that the contraband had been loaded by Sarif Khan from a hotel near Neemuch and that the consignment belonged to Sarif Khan, who had fled leaving his mobile phone in the truck. On these facts, FIR No. 281/2023 was registered under Sections 8 /15, 25, and 29 of the NDPS Act. His first bail application being SBCRLMB No.16313/2023 was dismissed by this Court as not pressed by this Court vide order dated 20.04.2024. On these facts, FIR No. 281/2023 was registered under Sections 8 /15, 25, and 29 of the NDPS Act. His first bail application being SBCRLMB No.16313/2023 was dismissed by this Court as not pressed by this Court vide order dated 20.04.2024. Hence the instant bail application. 3. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused- petitioner and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises. 4. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application 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. 5.1. On close scrutiny of the record, it is evident that on 26.08.2023 at 11:30 A.M., a pink-coloured car (RJ19-GD-6834) and a tarpaulin-covered truck (GJ09 BF-0719), both moving at high speed from Udaipur, were intercepted. On being stopped, the behaviour of the occupants appeared suspicious and reflected nervousness. The truck driver, identifying himself as Safi Khan, slowed down, whereupon certain occupants of both vehicles attempted to flee. 5.2. The record further indicates that during interrogation, the co- occupant sitting beside the truck driver disclosed the name of the person who escaped as Sabudin. The driver of the car identified himself as Anwar Khan, the truck driver as Safi Khan, and the helper as Sadiq Khan. Their collective conduct, upon noticing the police, was marked by panic and evasion. In accordance with statutory requirements, a Motbiran was appointed and both vehicles were searched. 5.3. The search of the car yielded no contraband, though the explanation regarding suspected concealment in its wheels was unsatisfactory. It was later alleged that the car was functioning as an escort vehicle for the truck. The truck (RJ19-GD-6834), on the other hand, was found loaded with poppy husk concealed in 15 plastic cans beneath sacks of white powder, weighing 3 quintals and 2 kilograms in total. 5.4. Thus, while both vehicles were intercepted, only the truck was found carrying contraband. No recovery was made from the car. The truck (RJ19-GD-6834), on the other hand, was found loaded with poppy husk concealed in 15 plastic cans beneath sacks of white powder, weighing 3 quintals and 2 kilograms in total. 5.4. Thus, while both vehicles were intercepted, only the truck was found carrying contraband. No recovery was made from the car. The sole basis of the prosecution’s case against the car is its arrival at the spot shortly after the truck was stopped, leading to the allegation that it was an escort vehicle. 5.5. At this stage, it is of paramount importance to note that the allegation against the petitioner, insofar as the use of the car is concerned, rests solely on the circumstance that the said vehicle happened to be intercepted in temporal and spatial proximity to the truck from which contraband was actually recovered. Such a circumstance, standing in isolation, cannot in law be regarded as sufficient to fasten criminal liability upon the occupants of the car. It is a matter of judicial recognition that national highways are public thoroughfares, traversed daily by an unremitting flow of innumerable vehicles. The mere fact that two vehicles are found travelling one after another, or are intercepted within a short span of time at or near the same location, cannot by itself constitute proof of collusion, nor can it be legitimately inferred that one vehicle was performing the role of an escort to the other. To accept such a proposition would be to criminalise ordinary vehicular movement, thereby subjecting innocent commuters to unwarranted penal consequences. Criminal law, by its very nature, requires proof of conscious possession, active participation, or demonstrable nexus with the prohibited act; conjecture or proximity in time and place does not suffice. In the absence of any cogent, admissible, and corroborated evidence linking the occupants of the car to the contraband discovered in the truck, the attribution of liability merely on the basis of circumstantial presence stands on precarious ground and cannot be sustained within the framework of settled principles of criminal jurisprudence. 5.6. In the absence of clear and admissible evidence establishing a direct nexus between the car and the truck, the prosecution’s claim that the car was an escort vehicle is speculative and cannot, in law, be treated as a proved fact. Hence, no substantive link has been established between the car’s occupants and the contraband recovered from the truck. 5.7. 5.6. In the absence of clear and admissible evidence establishing a direct nexus between the car and the truck, the prosecution’s claim that the car was an escort vehicle is speculative and cannot, in law, be treated as a proved fact. Hence, no substantive link has been established between the car’s occupants and the contraband recovered from the truck. 5.7. The Court further notes that despite the long passage of time, the trial has made little progress. Though charges were framed and proceedings initiated, only two out of seventeen witnesses have been examined so far. The delay has been aggravated by the filing of a supplementary charge-sheet on 11.02.2025 implicating Shakur Khan, thereby requiring a de novo trial. Consequently, the prospect of an early conclusion of the trial appears highly unlikely. 6. As per the law, while keeping an accused detained, the opportunity to the prosecutor to lead evidence can only be given for a reasonable period. The wider connotation of the phrase ‘reasonable period’ be understood to be one year because the case is classified as a sessions case which would mean that the like cases should commence and conclude within a session, that is, one year. Even if an elastic interpretation of the expression ‘reasonable period’ is taken on the pretext of certain unavoidable circumstances, then it can only be doubled and even in that situation, trial has to be completed within two years while keeping an accused in custody. Suffice it would to say that for the purpose of determination as to whether the accused is guilty or not, only a reasonable period can be awarded to the prosecutor if the accused is behind the bars. The cases which are classified as session case are purposefully directed to be heard by senior officer of District Judge Cadre looking to his experience and rank/grade/post. In criminal jurisprudence prevalent in India, there is a presumption of innocence working in favour of the accused until he is proven guilty in the trial. The trial is conducted for the purpose of affording an opportunity to the prosecutor to prove the charges and only for the purpose of proving guilt or adducing evidence on record, an unreasonable period of time cannot be granted as the same infringes the fundamental rights of an accused which are otherwise guaranteed by the Constitution of India. The trial is conducted for the purpose of affording an opportunity to the prosecutor to prove the charges and only for the purpose of proving guilt or adducing evidence on record, an unreasonable period of time cannot be granted as the same infringes the fundamental rights of an accused which are otherwise guaranteed by the Constitution of India. While entertaining a bail plea the Court of law is required to take into account the above-mentioned aspect of the matter as well beside the gravity of offence and quantum of sentence. 7. 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. 8. Considering the overall facts and circumstances and looking to the fact that the petitioner is behind the bar since last more than two years and noticing that there is no criminal antecedent except the present one and the culmination of trial in a near future is not a seeming fate this Court is of the view that nature and gravity of offence alone are not required to be considered at the time of granting bail but at the same time, it has to be ensured that the trial has to be concluded within a reasonable period if the accused in languishing in jail therefore, without going into the niceties of the matter it is felt that the right of the accused to have a speedy trial should be protected, this Court deems it fit to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner. 9. It is nigh well settled law that at a pre-conviction stage; bail is a rule and denial from the same should be an exception. The purpose behind keeping an accused behind the bars during trial would be to secure his presence on the day of conviction so that he may receive the sentence as would be awarded to him. Otherwise, it is the rule of Crimnal Jurisprudence that he shall be presumed innocent until the guilt is proved. 10. The purpose behind keeping an accused behind the bars during trial would be to secure his presence on the day of conviction so that he may receive the sentence as would be awarded to him. Otherwise, it is the rule of Crimnal Jurisprudence that he shall be presumed innocent until the guilt is proved. 10. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner as named in the cause title shall be enlarged on bail provided he 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 his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.