[7] Counsel for the petitioner s u bmits that the petitioner is be h ind bars for more than 01 year 05 mont h s and 10 days. The other c ase mentione d against the petitioner relate s to FIR No.49 dated 06.07.2 0 15 registere d for offence punishable under S ections 22, 61 & 85 of NDPS A ct, 1985. He further submits that after the p r osecution failed to present cha l lan even afte r 05 long years of the registrati o n of the FIR, the proceedings w ere ordered t o be consigned. In the present c ase also, the trial is proceeding a t a snail’s p a ce, as only 02 out of 10 cited witnesses could be examined, till now. H e submits that merely for the p eriod, the petitioner has suff e red actual in c arceration, he would be entitled for grant of regular bail. [8] Learned State counsel is n ot in a position to dispute the aforesaid facts. [9] I have heard learned counse l for the parties and have caref u lly gone thro u gh the records of the case. [10] Learned counsel for the pet i tioner relies upon order passe d by the Apex Court in the case of Rabi Prakash Vs. The State of Odisha pa s sed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 4169 of 2023 decided on 13.07.20 2 3 wherein it has been held as u n der :-
