ORDER : Anoop Chitkara, J. 1. Both petitions are being taken up together because they originate from the same FIR. 2. For possessing 19 Strips of Nitrozme Pam Tablet, each containing 10 tablets, in total 190 tablets and 10 bottles of Cough Syrup Corex, which is a prohibited drug, the petitioners who are under arrest, on being arraigned as accused in FIR Number 29/2020, dated 28.1.2020, registered under Sections 21, 22, 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (after now called "NDPS Act") and Section 18C of Drug & Cosmetic Act, in the file of Police Station, Boileauganj, District Shimla, HP, disclosing non-bailable offences, have come up before this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail. 3. Status report stands filed. I have seen the status report as well as the Police file, to the extent it was necessary for deciding the present petition, and heard learned Counsel for the parties. FACTS 4. The gist of the First Information Report and the investigation is that on 28.1.2020, the Police party headed by Assistant Sub Inspector, was conducting traffic checking and patrolling to stop crime, towards Kachighati, Sankatmochan, Taradevi and Shoghi side. At about 6:30 p.m., when the Police party was present at Taradevi near HRTC Workshop, then a bus of Punjab Roadways came from Chandigarh towards Shimla. The Police party indicated the said bus to stop and after that they started searching the passengers and their luggages. When the Police party reached near Seat Nos. 30 and 31, they noticed two persons sitting on it. Both of them had kept bags on their legs. The Police Officials asked them the reasons to travel in this bus, on which they could not give satisfactory explanation. On this, the Police Officials got suspicion that they must be carrying some objectionable items. After this, the Police Officials associated the Conductor of the bus and the passenger of Seat No. 32 as witnesses and inquired the names of said passengers of seats No. 30 and 31. The person sitting on Seat No. 30 revealed his name as Sanyog Temta, aged 20 years, and the person sitting on Seat No. 31 disclosed his name as Sachin Sharma, aged 20 years. The person sitting on Seat No. 30 revealed his name as Sanyog Temta, aged 20 years, and the person sitting on Seat No. 31 disclosed his name as Sachin Sharma, aged 20 years. After that, the Police conducted search of the bag of Sanyog Temta (accused No. 1) and from his bag, the Police recovered 19 strips of Nitrozme Pam Tablets, each strip containing 10 tablets, in all, 190 tablets. Apart from that, the said bag also contained 10 bottles of Corex Cough Syrup, each bottle containing 100 ml. Subsequently, the Police party also complied with the procedural requirements under the NDPS Act and the Cr.P.C. and arrested the accused persons, the present bail petitioners. 5. The Status Report is silent about the contents of the bag of Sachin Sharma (accused No. 2). It appears that the Police implicated him with the aid of Section 29 of the NDPS Act and that is why in the FIR, Section 29 of NDPS Act has been mentioned. 6. The recovered substance was sent to the laboratory for chemical analysis and it opined as under: "90. Tablets Nitrazwpam, Average weight of tablets 549.0MG total weight of 90 tablets 49.410 Composition (each Tablet Nitrazepam (10.omg) 100 tablets Nitrazepam, Average weight of tablets 552.OMG, Total weight of 100 tablets 55.200 Composition (each Tablet Nitrazepam (5.omg) Total weight 190 tablets 104.61 Corex Total bottles 10 Volume in Each bottles 100.oml Total volume = 1000.oml, Average weight of Syrup 118.00g/100ML, Total weight of Syrup 1.180 Kg." ANALYSIS and REASONING: 7. As far as Sanyog Temta, accused No. 1 is concerned, the allegations against him are that the Police had no prior information and it was conducting routine checking of the bus, and when the Police reached Seat No. 30, then they inquired from him that why is he traveling in the bus. This is extremely unbelievable and for the purpose of bail, this apprehension, cannot be taken as justiciable because the petitioner is a resident of Shimla and the people of Himachal Pradesh and especially of Shimla District have different facial features, which distinct them from appearance. He was traveling to his home from Chandigarh then there was no reason to ask him that why he was traveling in the bus. Everyday, so many people commute between Shimla and Chandigarh. He was traveling to his home from Chandigarh then there was no reason to ask him that why he was traveling in the bus. Everyday, so many people commute between Shimla and Chandigarh. In fact, Chandigarh is the biggest market for the people in Shimla, so the explanation offered by the Police that when they inquired from both the accused, the reasons of their travel in the bus, they could not give satisfactory explanation, cannot be considered to be sufficient so as to continue incarceration during trial because both of them are residents of Shimla and there was nothing unusual in returning to home. 8. So far as the second accused, Sachin Sharma is concerned, he was merely sitting on the adjacent seat and he has been roped under Section 29 of the NDPS Act. 9. Pre-trial incarceration needs justification depending upon the heinous nature of the offence, terms of the sentence prescribed in the Statute for such a crime, accused feeing from justice, hampering the investigation, and doing away with witnesses. The Court is under the Constitutional obligation to safeguard the interests of the victim, the accused, the society, and the State. 10. Section 2 (vii-a) of the NDPS Act defines commercial quantity as the quantity greater than the quantity specified in the schedule, and S. 2 (xxiii-a), defines a small quantity as the quantity lesser than the quantity specified in the schedule of NDPS Act. The remaining quantity falls in an undefined category, which is now generally called as intermediate quantity. All Sections in the NDPS Act, which specify an offense, also mention that minimum and maximum sentence, depending upon the quantity of the substance. Commercial quantity mandates minimum sentence of ten years of imprisonment and a minimum fine of Rupees One hundred thousand, and bail is subject to the riders mandated in S. 37 of NDPS Act. 11. Given the above reasoning, in my considered opinion, both the pet-toners have made out a case for grant of bail, and there is no need to discuss whether the quantity of drugs was commercial or not. As such Section 37 of the NDPS Act has no application in the facts of the case. 11. Given the above reasoning, in my considered opinion, both the pet-toners have made out a case for grant of bail, and there is no need to discuss whether the quantity of drugs was commercial or not. As such Section 37 of the NDPS Act has no application in the facts of the case. The judicial custody of the petitioners/accused is not going to serve any purpose whatsoever, and I am inclined to grant bail on the following grounds, apart from above, but subject to stringent conditions: (a) The petitioners are in judicial custody since 28.1.2020. (b) The petitioners are permanent resident of address mentioned in the memo of parties; therefore, their presence can always be secured. (c) In the status report, there is no mention of previous criminal history of the bail petitioners. (d) Both the petitioners are just 20 years of age. 12. In the result, the present petitions are allowed. The petitioners shall be released on bail in the present case, in connection with the FIR mentioned above, on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- each, with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court or any other Court exercising jurisdiction over the concerned Police Station where FIR is registered. 13. The Court executing the personal and surety bonds shall ascertain the identity of the bail-petitioner, her family members, and of sureties, through AADHAR Card, Pan Card, Raton Card, etc. The petitioners shall mention phone numbers and other details, on the reverse page of the bonds. 14. The Counsel for the accused and the attesting official shall explain all conditions of this bail to the petitioners. 15. The petitioners undertake to comply with all directions given in this order and the furnishing of bail bonds by the petitioners is acceptance of all such conditions: (a) The petitioners shall appear before the Court which issues the summons or warrants, and shall furnish fresh bail bonds to the satisfaction of such Court, if such Court directs to do so. (b) The petitioners shall not hamper the investigation. (c) The petitioners undertake not to contact the complainant and witnesses, to threaten or browbeat them or to use any pressure tactics. (b) The petitioners shall not hamper the investigation. (c) The petitioners undertake not to contact the complainant and witnesses, to threaten or browbeat them or to use any pressure tactics. (d) The petitioners undertake not to make any inducement threat or promise, directly or indirectly, to the investigating officer or any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (e) The petitioners shall neither influence nor try to control the investigating officer in any manner whatsoever. (f) In case, the petitioners are arraigned as accused of the commission of any offence, prescribing the sentence of imprisonment of more than seven years and in case the bail petitioners are arraigned as accused in any case, under the provisions of the NDPS Act, irrespective of the quantity, be it a small quantity, then within thirty days of knowledge of such FIR, the petitioners shall intimate the SHO of the present police station, with all the details of the present FIR as well as the new FIR. It shall be open for the State to apply to this Court or to the Trial Court for cancellation of this bail, if it deems fit and proper. (g) Within 30 days from today, the petitioners shall sell, or surrender, all firearms along with ammunition, and arms licenses, if any, to the authority which had given such permission. (h) Apart from above, in case the petitioners do not turn up before the Trial Court, then the trial Court may issue Non-Bailable warrants and send the petitioners to the Judicial Custody for the period for which the presence of the petitioners cannot be dispensed with. If the petitioners violate any other condition as stipulated in this bail order, then the Trial Court may direct the Public Prosecutor to file a cancellation application before it and it shall be lawful and permissible for the Trial Court to cancel the bail. (i) In case the petitioners repeat the offence or commit any offence where the sentence is seven years or more, then before granting bail, the Courts shall consider the fact that they were warned earlier about not repeating the offence and not committing it. 16. (i) In case the petitioners repeat the offence or commit any offence where the sentence is seven years or more, then before granting bail, the Courts shall consider the fact that they were warned earlier about not repeating the offence and not committing it. 16. This order of bail does not in any manner limit or restrict the rights or duties of the police or investigating agency, to investigate into the charges against the petitioners. 17. In case the petitioners find the bail condition as violating fundamental or other right, or any human right, or faces any other difficulty due to any condition, then, the petitioner may file a reasoned application for modification of such term. 18. It is clarified that the present bail order is only with respect to the above-mentioned FIR. It shall not be construed to be a blanket order of bail in all other cases, if any, registered against the Petitioners. 19. 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. 20. The petitions stand allowed in the aforesaid terms.