JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Since both the bail petitions arise out of same FIR, as such, they were taken up together for disposal vide this common judgment. 2. Bail petitioners, namely Ashish Sardana and Tarun Batra, have approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under S.438 CrPC, for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 54, dated 26.4.2019, under Ss.21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act and S.18C of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1945 registered with Police Station, Majra, Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh. 3. SI Sewa Singh has come present with the record. Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General has also placed on record status report prepared by the investigating agency on the basis of investigation carried out by it. Record perused and returned. 4. Record reveals that on 25.4.2019, Police after having received secret information, raided premises of "Apple Field International", situate in Village Puruwala, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur. Drug Inspector, Suresh Kumar inspected the record and the documents of the Factory named above and found no inconsistency in the documents as well as stock available in the Factory. Police also raided/searched store/godown allegedly owned and possessed by above named firm and recovered a huge quantity of prohibited drugs. Owner of store/godown, Ram Swaroop disclosed to the police that he had given premises to M/s Apple Field International on monthly rent. Assistant Drug Controller after having inspected contraband allegedly recovered from the aforesaid premises, gave a report to the following effect: “..........(1) Mecodine Syrup B. No. AF19075/02/2021 Mfd. By Apple Field International Puruwala 01 Bottle 100 ML(2) CoreX Syrup 100ML each C. No. AF1834009/2010 Mfd. by Remec Health care Banglore 13 Bottles. (3) unlabelled Codine Syrup 88 xrk isfV;ka dqy 9508 cksrysa (4) Loose coloured Blue Capsule containing Tromadol 67 Packets 26.15 Kg Total weight -645 Mg (filled cap) NDPS Act dh tn esa vkrs gS blds vfrfjDr 132 iSdsV loose label of Codine Phosphet Hkh is'k fd, gSa o cryk;k fd blds vfrfjDr dejk esa ekStwn vU; nokbZ;ka Drugs and Cosmetics Act ds vRuxZr vkrh gS tks Drug. Deptt. Deptt. }kjk ekSdk ls gh vius dCtk esa yh xbZ gSA tks ekSdk ij ADC }kjk mijksDr nkokbZ;ksa S. No. 1 ls 4 o 132 iSdsV loose label of Codine Phosphet eu mi fu0 dks NDPS Act ds vUrxZr dk;Zokgh djus gsrq is'k dh gh tks is'k djnk dqy 9508 cksrysa unlabelled Codine Syrup dks 88 xrk isfV;ksa esa Mkydj xRrk ifV;ksa esa Mkydj-----------** 5. After completion of necessary codal formalities, Police registered case under S.21 of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act and S.18C of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1945 against the bail petitioner Tarun Batra and co-accused Rajiv Kumar and Dinesh Kumar, who happened to be owner and employee, respectively of M/s Apple Field International. Police arrested Dinesh Kumar on 1.5.2019 and Rajiv Kuamr on 14.5.2019, who is owner of the Apple Field International and since then, both the above named persons are behind the bars. Bail petitioner Tarun Batra was ordered to be enlarged on bail vide order dated 2.8.2019, with the condition that he would make himself available for investigation, as and when required by the investigating agency. 6. During investigation, police found involvement of bail petitioner Ashish Sardana and accordingly, summoned him for investigation. Ashish Sardana was also ordered to be enlarged on bail vide order dated 2.8.2019, subject to his joining the investigation. On 19.8.2019, respondent State with a view to prove involvement of bail petitioners, Tarun Batra and Ashish Sardana, claimed before this Court that as per investigation, a sum of Rs. 11,99,782/- came to be transferred in the account of accused Ashish Ssrdana from the account of M/s Apple Field International between the years 2016-2019. Investigating agency further claimed that during the years 2017-19, a sum of Rs.7,57,260/- was also transferred in the account of wife of Ashish Sardana from the account of aforesaid Company. SI Sewa Singh also informed the Court that during investigation it has emerged that a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- came to be transferred into bank account of another accused namely Tarun Batra from the account of Apple Field International, as such, it cannot be said that persons named herein above, who have applied for bail, have no connection with M/s Apple Field International. 7. On 19.8.2019, Mr. 7. On 19.8.2019, Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General, strenuously argued that the bail petitioners named herein above are real conspirators because the firm in question is actually being run by these two persons and not by Rajiv Kumar, who is otherwise said to be owner of M/s Apple Field International. 8. On that day, during proceedings of the case, Mr. B.C. Negi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the bail petitioner, produced an affidavit allegedly executed by accused Rajiv Kumar to demonstrate that a sum of Rs.15.00 Lakh was advanced by Ashish Sardana to Rajiv Kumar, after setting up of Factory in question. Mr. Negi, learned Senior Advocate also contended that though Rajiv Kumar had issued cheques amounting to Rs.19.00 Lakh and Rs.5.00 Lakh, as security but, subsequently the amount of loan advanced to him came to be repaid to accused Ashish Sardana by way of transactions, as have been reflected in the status report. 9. This court, solely with a view to ascertain the correctness and genuineness of the affidavit produced before this Court, directed SI Sewa Singh to verify the same from the accused Rajiv Kumar, who otherwise is lodged in Model Central Jail, Nahan. 10. Today, during proceedings of the case, fresh status report has been filed by the investigating agency, wherein it has been categorically stated that accused Rajiv Kumar has verified the factum with regard to affidavit referred to herein above. As per statement given to the police, accused Rajiv Kumar has admitted that a sum of Rs.15.00 Lakh was taken by him from the bail petitioner, Ashish Sardana for the construction of his house. He has also admitted that he had purchased stamp papers allegedly used for preparing affidavit in question. Accused Rajiv Kumar during his statement given in Jail, stated that the bail petitioner Tarun Batra used to bring supply orders for his factory and in lieu thereof, aforesaid Tarun Batra used to get commission from M/s Apple Field International 11. Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General, while fairly stating before this Court that nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioners, vehemently opposed the prayer made on behalf of bail petitioners for grant of bail and contended that keeping in view gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed by the bail petitioners, they do not deserve any leniency. He further argued that both the bail petitioners are the actual culprits, who have simply used Rajiv Kumar, as such, their prayer for grant of bail may be rejected out rightly. 12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this court finds that as per documents collected on record, co-accused Rajiv Kumar is owner of M/s Apple Field International and investigating agency has not been able to recover any document suggestive of the fact that the present bail petitioners are the real owners, rather as per own investigation of the investigating agency, bail petitioner Tarun Batra used to get some money on account of commission from M/s Apple Field International. Owner of shop/godown, from where huge quantity of contraband came to be recovered has also nowhere named bail petitioners, rather, he has stated that he had given shop/godown in question to M/s Apple Field International. Though the investigating agency has brought on record certain transactions allegedly made inter se M/s Apple Field International and bail petitioners, but as has been taken noted herein above, co-accused Rajiv Kumar i.e. main accused has categorically stated that an amount of Rs.15.00 Lakh was advanced to him by Ashish Sardana for construction of his house. Similarly, he has admitted that the amounts used to be transferred to the account of Tarun Batra on account of commission charges. 13. At this stage, this Court finds no material evidence to connect the bail petitioners with the contraband allegedly recovered from the shop/godown possessed by M/s Apple Field International as such, sees no reason for custodial interrogation of the bail petitioners, who have otherwise made themselves available for investigation in terms of order dated 2.8.2018 passed by this Court. Since nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioners, as has been fairly stated by investigating agency, this Court is of the view that no fruitful purpose would be served in case bail petitioners are sent behind the bars for an indefinite period during trial, especially when their guilt, if any, is yet to be proved in accordance with law. 14. Though, the status report suggests that previously also bail petitioner, Ashish Sardana was found to be involved in an offence under Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, but that cannot be a ground to deny him bail because even in that case, his guilt has not yet been proved. 14. Though, the status report suggests that previously also bail petitioner, Ashish Sardana was found to be involved in an offence under Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, but that cannot be a ground to deny him bail because even in that case, his guilt has not yet been proved. Hon'ble Apex Court in Maulana Mohammed Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. (2012) 2 SCC 382 has held that merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the bail petitioner cannot be rejected. Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under: "10. It is not in dispute and highlighted that the second respondent is a sitting Member of Parliament facing several criminal cases. It is also not in dispute that most of the cases ended in acquittal for want of proper witnesses or pending trial. As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc." 15. Otherwise also, apprehension expressed by the learned Additional Advocate General that in the event of being enlarged on bail, bail petitioners may tamper with the prosecution evidence, can be best met with by imposing stringent conditions upon the bail petitioners. 16. Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 227/2018, Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. decided on 6.2.2018 has held that freedom of an individual can not be curtailed for indefinite period, especially when his/her guilt is yet to be proved. It has further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: "2. A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. 3. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case. 4. While so introspecting, among the factors that need to be considered is whether the accused was arrested during investigations when that person perhaps has the best opportunity to tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses. If the investigating officer does not find it necessary to arrest an accused person during investigations, a strong case should be made out for placing that person in judicial custody after a charge sheet is filed. Similarly, it is important to ascertain whether the accused was participating in the investigations to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and was not absconding or not appearing when required by the investigating officer. Surely, if an accused is not hiding from the investigating officer or is hiding due to some genuine and expressed fear of being victimised, it would be a factor that a judge would need to consider in an appropriate case. It is also necessary for the judge to consider whether the accused is a first-time offender or has been accused of other offences and if so, the nature of such offences and his or her general conduct. It is also necessary for the judge to consider whether the accused is a first-time offender or has been accused of other offences and if so, the nature of such offences and his or her general conduct. The poverty or the deemed indigent status of an accused is also an extremely important factor and even Parliament has taken notice of it by incorporating an Explanation to Section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. An equally soft approach to incarceration has been taken by Parliament by inserting Section 436A in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 5. To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be adopted by a judge, while dealing with an application for remanding a suspect or an accused person to police custody or judicial custody. There are several reasons for this including maintaining the dignity of an accused person, howsoever poor that person might be, the requirements of Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact that there is enormous overcrowding in prisons, leading to social and other problems as noticed by this Court in In Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons." 17. By now it is well settled that gravity alone cannot be a decisive ground to deny bail, rather competing factors are required to be balanced by the court while exercising its discretion. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2012) 1 SCC 49; has been held as under:- "The object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The Courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. Detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. The Courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. Detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, "necessity" is the operative test. In India , it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the propose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson." 18. Needless to say object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused in the trial and the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Apart from above, Court has to keep in mind 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 involved in that crime. 19. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Apart from above, Court has to keep in mind 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 involved in that crime. 19. The Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus 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. 20. In view of above, bail petitioners have carved out a case for grant of bail and as such, present petitions are allowed. Orders dated 2.8.2019 passed in both the petitions are made absolute, subject to petitioners furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten Lakh) each with one local surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned/trial court, besides the following conditions: (A). They shall make themselves available for the purpose of interrogation, if so required and regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application; (B). They shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever; (C). They shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and (D). They shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. (E). They shall surrender passports, if any, held by them. 21. They shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. (E). They shall surrender passports, if any, held by them. 21. It is clarified that if the petitioners misuse the liberty or violate any of the conditions imposed upon them, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail. 22. Any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of these petitions alone. The petitions stand accordingly disposed of. Copy dasti.