ORDER : V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J. 1. This criminal petition under sections 480 and 483 of the BNSS is filed by the petitioner to grant regular bail in connection with S.C.No.144 of 2024 of learned II Additional District Judge – cum – Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 20, 28 and 29 of the NDPS Act. 2. Heard arguments of Sri A.Sai Naveen, the learned counsel for petitioner and Smt.Shanti Chandra, the learned standing counsel for respondent/DRI. 3. This is a renewal regular bail petition. Opposing the bail petition, an elaborate counter is filed by the respondent. Earlier, the prayer for regular bail made by this petitioner in Crl.P.No.5246 of 2024 was declined by this court by an order dated 26.09.2024 holding that at that stage of the case it was not found fit to consider the bail plea. 4. The facts on record are that the petitioner/accused is a resident of Chanhatola Post Patsara, Ashiti Taluka, Beed District, State of Maharashtra. He is owner cum driver of lorry bearing registration No.MH 20 CT 6823. Acting in pursuance of credible information received about illicit transportation of Cannabis also known as Ganja, the officers of the DRI intercepted the above vehicle at Enikepadu junction, Vijayawada, State of Andhra Pradesh at 12.00 noon on 07.11.2023. On search of the vehicle, they found 731.075 Kgs of Ganja in the trolly of the lorry. After complying with all the legal formalities, the accused was arrested and the lorry and the contraband were seized. Investigation progressed and stood concluded and a charge sheet dated 03.05.2024 was laid before learned II Additional Sessions Judge – cum – Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada where it was registered as S.C.No.144 of 2024. From time to time, the accused has been remanded. 5. It is in the context of the above-mentioned facts, the prayer for bail has fallen for consideration. 6. Learned standing counsel for respondent/DRI strongly opposed the bail plea stating that the case is pending before a court in Andhra Pradesh and the accused belonged to State of Maharashtra and the experience has shown that such accused when released on bail never turn up to the court and consequently, cases could not be proceeded against them and NBWs have been pending for quite a long time as the accused in those cases have been absconding. Along with the additional material papers, examples of such cases with necessary details are placed on record. The further submission of the learned standing counsel for respondent/DRI is that since the case is about commercial quantity of Ganja, presumption under section 37 of the NDPS Act operates and the accused may not be released on bail and cited: • Narcotic Control Bureau V. Mohit Aggarwa, 2022 INSC 730. • Nandakumar N V. State of Kerala, 2023 SCC Online Ker 6707. 7. Learned counsel for petitioner/accused submits that there are procedural violations which should favourably be considered while considering the bail plea and that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for a long time and that there are bleak prospects of trial being taken up in the near future and in such cases plea of the accused may be favourably considered. To substantiate the contention that it is unlikely that the trial in this case would take place in the near future, the learned counsel has placed on record the pendency of total number of cases before the trial court and the usual number of cases that are being disposed of in a calendar year and the list of targeted matters before the court below. Based on such statistics, the submission made is that in the next few years, it is unlikely that the trial court would be able to commence trial in this case. 8. The further submission of the learned counsel for petitioner/accused is that respondent/DRI need not hold apprehensions of accused absconding in this case and placed on record, the sworn affidavit of elder brother of this petitioner. The affidavit is sworn by Sri Mhatardeo Ashruba Nakade. On 06.03.2025 during the hearing of this bail petition, the said individual appeared online and affirmed that he had given the undertaking affidavit on 01.01.2025. He further stated that he is asepoy working in Indian Army. A copy of his service certificate, his Aadhar copy and copy of his identity card are placed on record. The submission of the elder brother of the petitioner and contents of the affidavit are to the effect that the elder brother states that he has full control over his brother/accused and he is capable of producing him before the court concerned as and when directed and prays for release of the accused on bail. 9. The submission of the elder brother of the petitioner and contents of the affidavit are to the effect that the elder brother states that he has full control over his brother/accused and he is capable of producing him before the court concerned as and when directed and prays for release of the accused on bail. 9. The further submission of the learned counsel for petitioner/accused is that the petitioner may also be directed, in the event of granting bail, to make available his location through mobile phone by pairing it with the mobile phone of the investigating officer round the clock. In this regard, learned counsel for petitioner cited Puranmal Jat V. State of Rajasthan, 2023 SCC Online SC 1418 to the effect that such order could be passed. 10. Having considered the rival submissions, the following aspects are to be stated: Section 37 of the NDPS Act reads as below: Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable .—(1)Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),— (a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable; (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless— (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail. The above provision refers to section 19 which provides punishment for embezzlement of opium by cultivator ; section 24 provides punishment for external dealings in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances where the transactions take place with persons outside India; Section 27A provides for punishment for financing, illicit traffic and harbouring offenders. It is evident from the record that the present case does not fall under any of the above categories of offences. It is evident from the record that the present case does not fall under any of the above categories of offences. The notification of the Central Government indicates that Ganja in a quantity more than 20 Kgs is commercial quantity. In the present case, commercial quantity of Ganja is involved. 11. Crime was detected on 07.11.2023. Investigation was over on 03.05.2024. On 06.03.2025 as well as today, even charges were not framed by the trial court. Thus, the petitioner/accused has been in judicial custody for the last one year four months i.e., from 07.11.2023. He being an under trial prisoner, it is always expected that trial court would show expedition in taking up trial of such cases. Even after ten months after filing of the charge sheet, the trial court could not take up the case for hearing on charges. Looking at the pace of disposals as presented by the learned counsel for petitioner, it is quite unlikely that the trial court would be in position to take up this case in the near future. 12. In Special Courts bill, 1978, Re, (1979) 1 SCC 380 , their Lordships have stated that “it is common knowledge that currently in our country criminal courts excel in slow motion. The procedure is dilatory, dockets are heavy….. . ” In Achint Navinbhai Patel alias Mahesh Shah V. State of Gujarat (2002) 10 SCC 529, their Lordships held that “…it has been repeatedly stressed that NDPS cases should be tried as early as possible because in such cases normally the accused are not released on bail…” In Jalaluddin Khan V. Union of India, (2024) 10 SCC 574 , their Lordships held that bail is the rule, jail is the exception even when offences under special Acts are alleged to have been committed. In Ranjithsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma V. State of Maharashtra (2005) 5 SCC 294 , their Lordships held that there is no machinery available to the court to ascertain that once the accused is enlarged on bail, he will not commit any offence whatsoever. Therefore, it is the facts on record that alone be considered. 13. In the case at hand, investigative needs were over, and charge sheet was already laid. Trial before the special court is unlikely to take place in the immediate future. The address of the accused is not in dispute. Therefore, it is the facts on record that alone be considered. 13. In the case at hand, investigative needs were over, and charge sheet was already laid. Trial before the special court is unlikely to take place in the immediate future. The address of the accused is not in dispute. The charge sheet does not indicate criminal antecedents against the petitioner. His continuous availability for smooth conduct of the trial is assured by the learned counsel and is demonstrated through the elder brother of the accused. In the context of these aspects, this court holds that the petitioner has made out a case for his release on regular bail. 14. In these circumstances, this criminal petition is allowed in the following terms. 1. The petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand only) with two sureties of the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge – cum – Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada and one such surety should be his brother/ Sri Mhatardeo Ashruba Nakade. The other surety shall be one from the State of Andhra Pradesh. 2. The petitioner is directed to deposit his Passport before the learned trial court and he shall not leave the country without prior permission of the court. If he does not hold a passport he shall file a sworn affidavit to that effect before the learned trial court. 3. The petitioner shall not indulge in similar acts of crime. 4. The petitioner must regularly participate in the pre-trial and trial process without fail before the competent court. 5. The petitioner shall brief his advocate before the trial court and give an undertaking to the court that notice to his counsel before the trial court should be considered as sufficient notice to him/ the accused. 6. The petitioner must inform the investigation officer and the trial court about any change of his address. 7. The petitioner shall make available his location through mobile phone by pairing it with the mobile phone of the investigating officer round the clock. Any change of his mobile phone number or the instrument/ mobile phone shall be informed to the investigating officer. 8. Violation of any of these conditions by the petitioner/accused shall entitle the respondent/DRI to seek necessary orders from this Court.