JUDGMENT Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. - The present bail application has been maintained by the petitioner, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking his release in case FIR No.66 of 2020, dated 18.4.2020, under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, registered in Police Station Padhar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh 2. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is permanent resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. No fruitful purpose will be served by sending him behind the bars, so he be released on bail. 3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 18.04.2020, during the visit of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Padhar, for creating awareness amongst the villagers qua pandemic of Corona virus, a police team proceeded towards Village Baghla, where police received a secret tip-off that a person is illegally cultivating opium plants. When the police visited the tracts of the land, some opium plants were found and the rest were uprooted. As per the revenue records, the above tracts of land were found to be owned and possessed by Tehal Singh @ Tek Singh (petitioner herein). In total 2648 opium plants were found and many plants of opium were already uprooted, which were lying in the fields. Thereafter, the police proceeded with completing the codal formalities and a case was registered against the petitioner under the apt Section of ND&PS Act. The samples of opium plants, lifted from the above tracts of land, on being chemical analyzed, were found to be opium plants. Police also recorded the statements of the witnesses and prepared the spot map. As per the police, the petitioner is joining and co-operating in the investigation. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed, as the petitioner was found involved in a serious offence of cultivating opium plants in his fields and in case, at this stage, he is enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice and may also tamper with the prosecution witnesses. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the records, including the police report, carefully. 5. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the records, including the police report, carefully. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is permanent resident of the place and neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He has argued that no fruitful purpose will be served by sending him behind the bars. He has argued that in similar matters Co-ordinate Bench of this Court enlarged the petitioner(s) therein on bail. Therefore, the petition may also be allowed and the petitioner may also be enlarged on bail. 6. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner has committed a serious crime and in case, at this stage, he is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice, so it is prayed that the bail application of the petitioner may be dismissed. 7. In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is permanent resident of the place, neither in a position to flee from justice nor in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence. He has further argued that the custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police for investigation. The petitioner is joining and cooperating in the investigation and in similar cases Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has enlarged the petitioner(s) on bail, so the present bail application may be allowed and the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 8. After delving upon the judgments pronounced by Coordinate Bench of this Court in similar matters and the fact that the present case also falls in that catena of cases, where out of alleged specific number of plants only few were sent by the police for chemical examination, thus making it impossible to ascertain whether the quantity of psychotropic substance, if any, in the alleged recovered opium plants was commercial quantity, intermediate or small quantity. This Court, after giving thoughtful and incisive consideration to the facts that the petitioner is permanent resident of the place, neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, he is joining and co-operating in the investigation, ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, in case granted, considering the fact that nothing remains to be recovered from the petitioner, his custody is not at all required by the police for further investigation and also considering the all other facets of the case and without discussing the same elaborately, this Court finds that the present is a fit case, where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail, in the event of his arrest, in this case, is required to be exercised in his favour. Under these circumstances, it is ordered that the petitioner, in the event of his arrest, in case FIR No.66 of 2020, dated 18.4.2020, under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, registered in Police Station Padhar, District Mandi, be forthwith released on bail on his furnishing personal bond to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions: i. That the petitioner will appear before the learned Trial Court/police/authorities as and when required. ii. That the petitioner will not leave India without prior permission of the Court. iii. That the petitioner will 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Investigating Officer or Court. 9. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of. Copy dasti.