JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. Petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 42 of 2018 dated 3.8.2018 registered at P.S. Nankhari, District Shimla, under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 2. For enlarging the petitioner on bail, it has been canvassed that petitioner has been implicated falsely in the present case and further that even if the case of prosecution is believed in toto, alleged recovery of 107 grams of charas is not only lesser than commercial quantity but nearer to small quantity as provided under the Act and therefore, rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act are not attracted in the present case and therefore, in view of right to personal liberty of petitioner, he deserves to be released on bail. 3. It is true that bail is general rule and putting a person in jail or in prison during the trial is an exception and presumption of innocence is fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence. But these principles are not applicable as such, in cases where there is reverse onus and/or statutory presumption with regard to commission of offence and therefore, such cases are to be dealt with differently keeping in view the statutory presumption and reverse onus provided under the statute. Being a basic natural right, liberty is a priceless treasure for a human being. Depriving of liberty to a person has enormous impact on his mind as well as body. But at the same time, accent on individual liberty cannot be pyramided to that extent which would bring chaos and anarchy to a society and society expects responsibility and accountability from its members and it desires that the citizens should obey the law, respecting it as a cherished social norm and attempt of an individual to create a concavity in the stems of social stream is impermissible and in such a case, the Court has a duty towards the society. 4. 4. For consideration of a bail application, detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of merits of case are to be avoided as consideration of details of the evidence is not a relevant consideration and where mere prima facie involvement of the case is apparent in a case harming the societal interest like present in nature, accused may not be permitted to be enlarged on bail for protecting his individual interest keeping in view his right to liberty. 5. Perusal of status report, filed by the State, indicates that since 2008 till date, besides present case, as many as four criminal cases were registered against the petitioner. In FIR No.70 of 2008 dated 17.5.2008 P.S. Rampur he was tried under Section 61 of the Excise Act, though he was acquitted in this case. However another criminal case arising out of FIR No.129 of 2009 registered under Section 61 (1) (14) of the Excise Act in P.S. Rampur is still pending consideration in the Court. Further in a case arising out of FIR No.67 of 2010 registered in P.S. Rampur under Section 302 IPC, petitioner stands acquitted but in another case in FIR No.202 of 2012 registered under Section 20 of the NDPS Act in P.S. Rampur he stands convicted vide judgment dated 5.1.2018 wherein he was sentenced to pay Rs.12,000/- as fine. 6. It is true that for quantity of charas recovered from the petitioner, rigors of Section 37 IPC are not applicable in the present case, however, general principles, require to be considered at the time of granting the bail as also envisaged in Cr.P.C., are to be definitely taken into consideration. Antecedents of the petitioner are also relevant factors. Present petitioner is previous convict in a case under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. No doubt, previous conviction cannot be a sole base for denying the bail to the petitioner, however, other circumstances are also not favourable to him as not only his bail application, preferred before learned Special Judge-cum-District and Sessions Judge Kinnaur at Rampur, stands rejected on 4.9.2018, but bail application preferred in this Court was also dismissed on 8.10.2018 and copies of these orders have also been placed on record so as to discuss the reason for dismissal of petitioner’s earlier bail application and there is no material placed on record showing the circumstances considered at that time and change therein after that. Case is pending consideration before learned Special Judge and fixed for 21.12.2018 for checking of copy of challan and other documents supplied to the petitioner. 7. In view of above, considering the cumulative effect of entire circumstances, without entering upon the merits of the evidence and keeping in view the principles laid down by the Apex court and other factors like nature of offence and its impact on society, petitioner is not entitled for bail at this stage. Hence the petition is dismissed. 8. Any observation made herein above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of case and shall be construed to have been made for limited purpose of deciding this application and the trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced, by any observation made herein above.