JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant petition, stands instituted by the petitioner/ bail applicant, under, Section 438 Cr.P.C., wherein he seeks grant of anticipatory bail qua him, given his apprehending his arrest, for allegedly committing offences punishable, under Sections 21 and 29 of ND & PS Act, in case FIR No. 94/19 of 23.4.2019, registered with Police Station, West District Shimla, H.P. 2. The investigating Officer, is, present in Court, and, has disclosed, that, Heroin carrying a weight of 7.5 grams, hence, standing allegedly recovered from the conscious and exclusive possession, of, the bail applicant. The afore quantity of Heroin recovered, from, the purported conscious and exclusive possession of the bail applicant, renders it to fall, within, the category, of less than commercial quantity thereof, and, thereupon, the rigors of the statutory provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, are not applicable thereon, whereupon, this Court proceeds to accord the indulgence of bail qua the bail applicant. 3. Mr. Hemant Vaid, learned Deputy Advocate General submits before this Court, that, the bail applicant is a habitual criminal, and, there are other FIRs besides the instant one, recorded against him. He submits that hence given the repeated indulgence of the applicant, in criminal activities, thereupon, the according of facility of bail in his favour, being not appropriate, as there, is every likelihood of his influencing the prosecution witnesses, in other cases pending against him, and, also his reindulging in the commission of offences. 4. Even though the factum of repeated, and, successive indulgence of the bail applicant, in, criminal activities and besides the factum of criminal cases pending against him, though, is a necessary factor to be borne in mind, when according or refusing the facility of bail, to him. However, in view of the mandate enshrined in Maulana Mohammed Amir Rashadi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2012) 2 SCC 382 , wherein it stands enshrined, that upon strict/stringent conditions, being hence imposed, by this Court, would, rather obviate the factum of the bail applicant, hence fleeing from justice or influencing witnesses. Thereupon, in consonance therewith, imposition of stringent conditions, would also hence mitigate as well as allay, the, apprehension of the State, that, given his previous repeated indulgences in criminal activities, upon, his being granted bail, it would facilitate his abusing his bail, and, his reindulging in criminal activities. Thereupon, in consonance therewith, imposition of stringent conditions, would also hence mitigate as well as allay, the, apprehension of the State, that, given his previous repeated indulgences in criminal activities, upon, his being granted bail, it would facilitate his abusing his bail, and, his reindulging in criminal activities. Consequently, this Court proceeds to afford qua him the facility of bail, however, subject to the condition qua upon his reindulging in criminal activities, it shall facilitate the respondent, to move this Court for cancellation of bail. 5. Moreover, when at this stage, no material, has been placed on record, by the prosecution, demonstrating that in the event of bail being granted to the bail applicant, there being every likelihood of his fleeing from justice or tampering with prosecution evidence, thereupon this Court is constrained to afford, the facility of bail in favour of the bail applicant. 6. Accordingly, the indulgence of bail is granted to the bail applicant/petitioner, and, order of 8.5.2019, is confirmed, on, the following conditions: 1. That he shall join the investigation, as and when required by the Investigating agency; 2. That he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police; 3. That he shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; 4. That he shall deposit his passport, if any, with the Police Station, concerned; 5. That in case of violation of any of the conditions, the bail granted to the petitioner shall be forfeited and he shall be liable to be taken into custody; 6. That he shall apply for bail afresh when the challan is filed before the trial Court. 7. That upon his re-indulging in crime, thereupon the State is at liberty for motioning this Court, for, cancellation of the bail. 7. 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.