JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, J (Oral)—H.C. Tek Chand No.3, I/O, Police Station, Balh, District Mandi, H.P., is present in Court. Record perused and returned. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that the contraband substance alongwith the mobile phones allegedly belonging to all the three accused, occupants of the vehicle, were found in the bag so kept in the front seat of the vehicle. The accused was arrested on 7.4.2017. FIR No.67/17, dated 7.4.2017, under the provisions of Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the NDPS Act), was registered at Police Station, Rati, District Mandi, H.P. 3. It is not in dispute that Purshotam Kumar, owner of the vehicle from which the contraband substance kept in a bag was recovered, already stands enlarged on bail. Petitioner, aged about 24 years, is a permanent resident of Himachal Pradesh. Investigation is almost complete and no recovery is required to be effected from the accused. His custodial interrogation, as is stated by the Investigating Officer, is not required. There is no likelihood of his either absconding or committing the same offence. It is not the case that the petitioner is influential and as such is likely to either hamper the investigation or intimidate the witnesses. 4. The principle for grant of bail is now well settled. The normal rule is bail and not jail. But then, while granting bail, Court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. 5. Rigors of Section 37 of the Act do not apply. 6. 5. Rigors of Section 37 of the Act do not apply. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner invites attention to various decisions rendered by the Courts in Kishan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1995 CRI.L.J. 3947 ; Roy V.D. v. State of Kerala, AIR 2001 SC 137 ; Gangaram Rama Gundkar & another v. State of Maharashtra, 2002 CRI.L.J 2578 ; Collector of Customs, New Delhi v. Ahmadalieva Nodira, (2004) 3 SCC 549 & 619 ; and Cr.MP(M) No. 11846 of 2013, titled as Devinder Kumar v. State of H.P., decided by this Court on 08.01.2014 , which stand considered by the Court. 7. Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and another, (2010) 14 SCC 496 , has laid down the following principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. 8. Having holistically considered the nature of offence, relevant attending circumstances in favour of the petitioner, I feel that it is a fit case in which petitioner should be enlarged on bail. 9. As such, petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Judicial Magistrate, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. It is clarified that petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence, try to influence the witnesses or in any manner conduct himself as to disentitle him from the discretionary power. Also, he shall always make himself available during trial. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Judicial Magistrate is directed to comply with the directions issue by the High Court, vide letter No.HHCVIG/Misc.Instructions/93-IV-7139, dated 18.03.2013. 10. Any observation made herein above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made herein above. 11. Application stands disposed of