JUDGMENT : ANOOP CHITKARA, J. 1. An under-trial prisoner, who is in custody since 12.09.2019, has come up before this Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) seeking bail, under Section 21 of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (after now called “NDPS Act”) for jointly possessing 27.65 grams of Diacetylmorphine (Heroin), with the other accused, who already stands released on bail. 2. The police arrested the petitioner, in FIR Number 111 of 2019, dated 12.9.2019, registered under Sections 21 and 22 of the NDPS Act and Section 201 IPC in Police Station Damtal, District Kangra, H.P. disclosing cognizable and non-bailable offenses. 3. Earlier, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. before, learned Special Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. However, vide order dated 2.11.2019, the Court had dismissed the same as withdrawn. 4. I have read the status reports and heard Learned Counsel for the parties. FACTS: 5. The gist of the First Information Report and the status report is that on 12.9.2019, Police Party was on patrolling duty within the jurisdiction of Police Station Damtal, District Kangra, H.P. to detect crime. At about 4.30 p.m. when the Police Party reached near the Gate of Ram Gopal Mandir, Damtal Bazar, then the police noticed two persons riding on motorcycle. On noticing the Police, the said persons reversed their motorcycle and drove it on the opposite direction. However, because the driver of the motorcycle was perplexed, he could not control the same, which fell down. On this, reasons to believe arose in the mind of the police officials that they might be having some contraband substance or some illegal articles. The driver told his name as Dalip Kumar and the other person told his name as Randhir Kumar (petitioner herein). After that the police associated two persons as independent witnesses and in their presence the police asked them for the reason they tried to run away and asked them to show the documents of the motorcycle. However, they were trying to avoid all the questions in the inquiry. This arose suspicion in the mind of the Investigating Officer and in the presence of the independent witnesses he opened the seat of the motorcycle and noticed one polythene packet. On opening the same, police recovered a substance which prima facie, appeared to be Heroin. However, they were trying to avoid all the questions in the inquiry. This arose suspicion in the mind of the Investigating Officer and in the presence of the independent witnesses he opened the seat of the motorcycle and noticed one polythene packet. On opening the same, police recovered a substance which prima facie, appeared to be Heroin. The police tested the same with the help of drug detection kit, which detected positive for heroin. On weighing the same, it measured 9.56 grams. Police also found one another polythene pouch which had 24.29 grams of Heroin. However, when the Police were conducting the proceedings then petitioner Randhir Kumar suddenly took the contraband and threw it on the road. Police again tried to lift the substance from the road and was able to retrieve 18.9 grams of Heroin. Subsequently, the Police party also complied with the procedural requirements under the NDPS Act and the Cr.P.C. and arrested the petitioner. PREVIOUS CRIMINAL HISTORY: 6. As per the counsel for the petitioner as well as the status report petitioner has a large number of criminal cases. He was convicted in two cases under the NDPS Act by the Addl. Sessions Judge Jullundhar, Punjab, which were in relation to FIR No. 230 of 2013, dated 28.8.2013 and FIR No. 2 of 2013, dated 1.1.2013, both registered at Police Station Phillaur, Jullandhar, Punjab. The accused was acquitted in two cases under the NDPS Act by the Addl. Sessions Judge Jallundhar, Punjab, which were in relation to FIR No. 215 of 2014, dated 27.7.2013 and FIR No. 51 of 2017, dated 14.3.2017. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that conditions may be put that in case the petitioner repeats the offence, this bail may be canceled. SUBMISSIONS: 7. The learned counsel for the bail petitioner submits that the allegations against the petitioner are false and he has nothing to do with the said allegations. He further states that petitioner has to shoulder responsibility of his family and also submitted that his bail petition be considered on humanitarian grounds in view of the spread of the Covid-19 pandemic. 8. On the contrary, Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, contends that the investigating officer has collected sufficient prima facie evidence. He further submits that if this Court is inclined to grant bail, then such a bond must be subject to very stringent conditions. ANALYSIS AND REASONING: 9. 8. On the contrary, Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, contends that the investigating officer has collected sufficient prima facie evidence. He further submits that if this Court is inclined to grant bail, then such a bond must be subject to very stringent conditions. ANALYSIS AND REASONING: 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, probability of the accused fleeing from justice, hampering the investigation, and doing away with the victims and witnesses. The Court is under an obligation to maintain a balance between all stakeholders and safeguard the interests of the victim, accused, society and 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 offence, also mention the minimum and maximum sentence, depending upon the quantity of the substance. When the substance falls under commercial quantity statute mandates minimum sentence of ten years of imprisonment and a minimum fine of INR One hundred thousand, and bail is subject to the riders mandated in S. 37 of NDPS Act. 11. As per the FIR, the substance involved is Heroin, mentioned at Sr. No. 56 of the Notification, issued under Section 2 (vii-a) and (xxiii-a) of NDPS Act, specifying small and commercial quantities of drugs and psychotropic substances. The quantity of drug involved is less than commercial quantity but greater than small quantity. As such the rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act shall not apply in the present case. Resultantly, the present case has to be treated like any other case of grant of bail in a penal offence. 12. In the present case, the quantity of substance seized is less than the commercial quantity. Therefore, the bail application stands on different parameters and is similar to bail petitions under regular statutes. 13. Resultantly, the present case has to be treated like any other case of grant of bail in a penal offence. 12. In the present case, the quantity of substance seized is less than the commercial quantity. Therefore, the bail application stands on different parameters and is similar to bail petitions under regular statutes. 13. In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Others vs. State of Punjab, 1980 (2) SCC 565 , a Constitutional bench of Supreme Court holds in Para 30, as follows: It is thus clear that the question whether to grant bail or not depends for its answer upon a variety of circumstances, the cumulative effect of which must enter into the judicial verdict. Any one single circumstance cannot be treated as of universal validity or as necessarily justifying the grant or refusal of bail. 14. In Gudikanti Narasimhulu vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. (1978) 1 SCC 240 , Supreme Court in Para 16, holds: The delicate light of the law favours release unless countered by the negative criteria necessitating that course. 15. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, 2005 (2) SCC 42 , a three-member bench of Supreme Court holds: “18. It is trite law that personal liberty cannot be taken away except in accordance with the procedure established by law. Personal liberty is a constitutional guarantee. However, Article 21 which guarantees the above right also contemplates deprivation of personal liberty by procedure established by law. Under the criminal laws of this country, a person accused of offences which are non-bailable is liable to be detained in custody during the pendency of trial unless he is enlarged on bail in accordance with law. Such detention cannot be questioned as being violative of Article 21 since the same is authorised by law. But even persons accused of non-bailable offences are entitled for bail if the court concerned comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case against him and/or if the court is satisfied for reasons to be recorded that in spite of the existence of prima facie case there is a need to release such persons on bail where fact situations require it to do so. In that process a person whose application for enlargement on bail is once rejected is not precluded from filing a subsequent application for grant of bail if there is a change in the fact situation. In such cases if the circumstances then prevailing requires that such persons to be released on bail, in spite of his earlier applications being rejected, the courts can do so.” 16. Any detailed discussions about the evidence may prejudice the case of the prosecution or the accused. Suffice it to say that due to the reasons mentioned above and keeping in view the nature of allegations, this Court believes that further incarceration of the accused during the trial is neither warranted nor will achieve any significant purpose. 17. Thus, without commenting on the merits of the evidence collected so far, in the cumulative effect of all the factors mentioned hereinbefore, the petitioner makes out a case for bail. 18. The petitioner is a resident of Village Ganna Pind, P.O. Haripur Khalsa, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jullandhar, Punjab. Hence his presence can be secured. 19. To ensure that the petitioner does not get an opportunity to commit an offence while on bail and the Court is putting the following stringent conditions and this bail shall be subject to the strict terms. 20. Given the above reasoning, the Court is granting bail to the petitioner, subject to the imposition of following stringent conditions, which shall be over and above, and irrespective of the contents of the form of bail bonds in chapter XXXIII of Cr.P.C. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be released on bail in the present case, connected with the FIR mentioned above, on his furnishing a personal bond of INR 50,000/- (INR Fifty thousand only), to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. The petitioner shall also furnish one surety for INR 5000 (INR Five thousand only), to the satisfaction of the Sessions Court/Special Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Ilaqua Magistrate/Duty Magistrate/the Court, which is exercising jurisdiction over the concerned Police Station where FIR is registered. The petitioner shall also furnish one surety for INR 5000 (INR Five thousand only), to the satisfaction of the Sessions Court/Special Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Ilaqua Magistrate/Duty Magistrate/the Court, which is exercising jurisdiction over the concerned Police Station where FIR is registered. The furnishing of bail bonds shall be deemed acceptance of all stipulations, terms, and conditions of this bail order: (a) The petitioner to give security to the concerned Courts, for attendance on every date, unless exempted, and in case of Appeal, also promise to appear before the higher Court, in terms of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. (b) The petitioner shall give details of AADHAR number, phone numbers (if available), WhatsApp number (if available), e-mail (if available), personal bank accounts (if available), on the reverse page of the personal bonds and the officer attesting the personal bonds shall ascertain the identity of the bail-petitioner, through these documents. (c) The Attesting officer shall on the reverse page of personal bonds, mention the permanent address of the petitioner along with the above-mentioned information, whatever is available. (d) The petitioner shall not influence, threaten, browbeat, or pressurize the witnesses and the Police officials. (e) The petitioner shall not make any inducement, threat, or promise, directly or indirectly, to the Investigating officer, or any other person acquainted with the facts of the case, to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police, or the Court, or to tamper with the evidence. (f) Once the trial begins, the appellant shall not in any manner try to delay the trial. The petitioner undertakes to appear before the concerned Court, on the issuance of summons/warrants by such Court. The petitioner shall attend the trial on each date, unless exempted, and in case of Appeal, also promise to appear before the higher Court, in terms of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. (g) There shall be a presumption of proper service to the petitioner about the date of hearing in the concerned Court, even if it takes place through SMS/ WhatsApp message/ E-Mail/ or any other similar medium, by the Court. (h) In the first instance, the Court shall issue summons and may inform the Petitioner about such summons through SMS/ WhatsApp message/E-Mail. (h) In the first instance, the Court shall issue summons and may inform the Petitioner about such summons through SMS/ WhatsApp message/E-Mail. (i) In case the petitioner fails to appear before the Court on the specified date, then the concerned Court may issue bailable warrants, and to enable the accused to know the date, the Court may, if it so desires, also inform the petitioner about such Bailable warrants through SMS/ WhatsApp message/ E-Mail. (j) Finally, if the petitioner still fails to put in an appearance, then the concerned Court may issue Non-Bailable warrants to procure the petitioner's presence and send the petitioner to the Judicial custody for a period for which the concerned Court may deem fit and proper. (k) In case of Non-appearance, then irrespective of the contents of the bail bonds, the petitioner undertakes to pay all the expenditure (only the principal amount without interest), that the State might incur to produce him before such Court, provided such amount exceeds the amount recoverable after forfeiture of the bail bonds, and also subject to the provisions of Sections 446 and 446-A of Cr.P.C. The petitioner's failure to reimburse the State shall entitle the trial Court to order the transfer of money from the bank accounts of the petitioner. However, this recovery is subject to the condition that the expenditure incurred must be spent to trace the petitioner and it relates to the exercise undertaken solely to arrest the petitioner in that FIR and during that voyage, the Police had not gone for any other purpose/function what so ever. (l) The petitioner shall abstain from all criminal activities. If done, then while considering bail in the fresh FIR, the Court shall take into account that even earlier, the Court had cautioned the accused not to do so. (m) The petitioner shall intimate about the change of residential address and change of phone numbers, WhatsApp number, e-mail accounts, within 10 days from such modification, to the police station of this FIR, and also to the concerned Court. (n) During the pendency of the trial, if the petitioner commits any offence under NDPS Act, even if it involves small quantity, then it shall be open for the State to apply for cancellation of this bail order. (n) During the pendency of the trial, if the petitioner commits any offence under NDPS Act, even if it involves small quantity, then it shall be open for the State to apply for cancellation of this bail order. (o) In case of violation of any of the conditions as stipulated in this order, the State/Public Prosecutor may apply for cancellation of bail of the petitioner and even the concerned trial Court shall be competent to cancel the bail. Otherwise, the bail bonds shall continue to remain in force throughout the trial and also after that in terms of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. 21. In case the petitioner finds the bail conditions as violating fundamental, human, or other rights, or causing difficulty due to any situation, then for modification of such terms, the petitioner may file a reasoned application before this Court, and after taking cognizance, even before the Court taking cognizance or the trial Court, as the case may be, and such Court shall also be competent to modify or delete any condition. 22. The learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the attesting officer, in whose presence the petitioner puts signatures on personal bond, shall explain all conditions of this bail order to the petitioner, in vernacular. 23. The petitioner undertakes to comply with all the directions given in this order. Furnishing of bail bonds by the petitioner is the acceptance of all such conditions. 24. The officer attesting the personal bonds shall ascertain the identity of the bail-petitioner, through these documents, and mention details on the reverse page of the personal bonds. 25. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the present case, in connection with the FIR mentioned above, on furnishing bail bonds in the terms described above. 26. This order does not, in any manner, limit or restrict the rights of the Police or the investigating agency, from further investigation in accordance with law. 27. The present bail order is only for the FIR mentioned above. It shall not be a blanket order of bail in any other cases registered against the petitioner. 28. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 29. 27. The present bail order is only for the FIR mentioned above. It shall not be a blanket order of bail in any other cases registered against the petitioner. 28. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 29. The Court Master shall handover this order to the concerned branch of the Registry of this Court, and the said official shall immediately send a copy of this order to the District and Sessions Judge, concerned, by e-mail. The Court attesting the bonds shall not insist upon the certified copy of this order and shall download the same from the website of this Court, or accept a copy attested by an Advocate, which shall be sufficient for the record. The Court Master shall handover an authenticated copy of this order to the Counsel for the Petitioner and the Learned Advocate General if they ask for the same. 30. In return for the freedom curtailed for breaking the law, the Court believes that the accused shall also reciprocate through desirable behavior. 31. While deciding the propositions of law involved in this matter, I have considered all the similar orders/judgments pronounced by me. Thus, this order is more comprehensive and up to date. Consequently, given above, all previous judgments/orders passed by me, where the proposition of law was similar, or somewhat similar, be not cited as precedents. 32. The petition stands allowed in the terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand closed.