Regular bail under NDPS law granted for prolonged custody, slow trial progress, and comparable Supreme Court bail precedent.

Regular bail under the NDPS Act was considered appropriate where the accused had spent over three years in custody, had no other criminal involvement, and the trial was progressing slowly with only a small part of the prosecution evidence recorded. The Court treated the prolonged incarceration and likely delay in trial as sufficient grounds to avoid further detention, noting that the Supreme Court had granted bail in comparable cases on similar facts. On that basis, continued custody was found unnecessary and regular bail was granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail in a case under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 on the ground of long custody and likely delay in trial.

Analysis: The petitioner had remained in custody for more than three years, had no other criminal involvement, and the trial was moving slowly with only 2 out of 10 prosecution witnesses examined. The Court also noted that the Supreme Court had granted bail in comparable matters on the ground of long custody. In these circumstances, continued incarceration was found unnecessary for the progress of the case.

Conclusion: The petitioner was held entitled to regular bail.

---