JUDGMENT Vivek Singh Thakur, J. - Petitioner has approached this Court, under Section 438 Cr.P.C., for granting him anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 21 of 2021 dated 11.2.2021, registered under Sections 15, 29, 27-A of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter in short NDPS Act ) and Section 212 IPC in Police Station Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur (H.P.). 2. Status report stands filed wherein it is brought on record that on 2.11.2021, at about 6 AM, on the basis of reliable information that truck No. HP-11-4991 moving towards Banjara Basti huge poppy-straw can be recovered, the said information was transmitted to Sub Divisional Police Officer as provided under 1of NDPS Act and police party had rushed towards Banjara Basti where aforesaid truck was found coming towards Satiwala Chowk main road. However, on seeing the PCR van of police, person driving the truck, after parking the truck, had come out from driver side and had fled towards Yamuna river by taking benefit of darkness and dense fog and despite taking help of torch and mobile light, he could not be chased by police officials, and during checking of truck, 8 plastic bags were found in rear portion of truck and on opening of one bag, poppystraw was found therein, which created suspicion that other 7 plastic bags might have been containing poppy-straw, whereupon house owners of houses, adjacent to the spot, were asked to join search and seizure process, but, by citing their difficulties, they refused to come on spot, whereupon Panchayat Pardhan Anjana and Up-Pardhan Satnam Singh were called on spot from their houses through PCR van and were asked to join search and seizure process, but, they also had refused to join as independent witnesses by referring their own restrictions. Thereafter, a Constable was sent to Toll Tax Barrier Bahral in search of independent witness wherefrom Toll Tax Barrier employee Arun Sharma had agreed to become an independent witness and thus, he was associated in search and seizure process. Thereafter, 8 plastic bags were unloaded from truck and each bag was opened and checked, wherein poppy-straw was found. On weighing with electronic scale available in police vehicle, in total 200.278 Kg poppy-straw was found in those bags. Thereafter, 8 plastic bags were unloaded from truck and each bag was opened and checked, wherein poppy-straw was found. On weighing with electronic scale available in police vehicle, in total 200.278 Kg poppy-straw was found in those bags. Thereafter, by sending a ruka, FIR was registered in Police Station and recovered contraband was seized and taken in possession by Investigating Officer and thereafter, SI Gian Singh along with police officials had gone to Khaira valley of Yamuna river in search of accused, then in Khaira valley also, he had found 6 plastic bags of poppy-straw and two spades and one belcha kept in pits of sand under cover of bushes. In these bags, in total 150.500 Kg poppy-straw was found, which was also taken in possession along with belcha and spades. 3. On 15.2.2021, Higher Police Officers had constituted a Special Investigation Team for investigating the case. During investigation, truck owner Ajmer Singh was interrogated, who had disclosed that on 10.2.2021 Parveen Kumar resident of Satiwala (petitioner), who was his neighbour, had approached him in the morning for his truck to shift the goods therein and he (Ajmer) had agreed for that and in the evening Parveen and Subhash had come to his house and asked him to bring the truck near Reliance Petrol Pump, Taruwala by saying that both of them would meet him there, whereupon, Ajmer had driven his truck from his house and Parveen and Subhash had followed him in his (Ajmer s) Alto car and thereafter, Parveen had telephonically informed Ajmer that Mohammad Deen @ Kala and Chaman @ Tinku will meet him behind the petrol pump and asked him (Ajmer) to hand over the key of truck to them and accordingly he (Ajmer) had handed over the key of truck to Mohammad Deen and Chaman @ Tinku and started coming back on foot towards Badripur and by that time, Parveen and Subhash, who had brought his car, handed over the car to him and thereafter he (Ajmer) went home. 4. 4. It is stated in status report that since 12.2.2021, police kept on searching Mohammad Deen @ Kala, Chaman @ Tinku, Subuash and Parveen in their homes, but, they had absconded to avoid their arrest and thereafter, on 19.2.2021, Mohammad Deen @ Kala, Budh Ram and Ajmer could be traced after great difficulty and were associated in the investigation and during interrogation, Mohammad Deen had disclosed that poppy-straw was brought out of State in another truck with help of Parveen, Subhash and Chaman @ Tinku and thereafter, Mohammad Deen @ Kala, Ajmer Singh and Budh Ram were arrested on 19.2.2021 and their police remand was obtained on 20.2.2021. 5. As per status report, on 20.2.2021, Mohammad Deen had made a disclosure statement under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act in the presence of independent witness Gaurav Dhiman, Block Development Officer Paonta Sahib and ASI Ram Lal and in pursuant thereto, 4 bags of poppy-straw were recovered from Satiwala forest/Khudd wherein in total 101.530 Kg. poppy-straw was recovered. 6. The recovered contraband was sent for chemical analysis to the State FSL Jundga and it has been reported by State FSL that recovered material was poppy-straw. 7. As per status report, Budh Ram had used his tractor No. HP-17D-9357 for loading and unloading the poppy-straw under instructions of Parveen Kumar petitioner and car of Ajmer bearing No. HP-17E-9340 was used by Parveen Kumar and Subhash and another car of Ajmer HP-17F-4020 was also used by Mohammad Deen @ Kala and Mushatkeen to procure poppystraw from Jharkhand and to load in truck No. HR-55A-4876 along with driver Deepak in the month of January, 2021 in the bags of rice. All these vehicles have been taken in possession by police. It is also stated that after taking into possession of aforesaid trucks by Finance Company in Banaras, Mohammad Deen and Mushatkeen had returned home, but, truck driver Deepak had stayed there and freight thereof was fixed by Mohammad Deen @ Kala and Ahsaan resident of village Dharmawala in District Dehradun for Rs. 1,50,000/- and out of that, Rs.80,000/- were received by Ahsaan from Mohammad Deen and, therefore, Ahsaan has also been arrested under Section 29 of NDPS Act on 23.2.2021, who after remaining in police custody for three days, has been sent to judicial custody since 26.2.2021. 8. 1,50,000/- and out of that, Rs.80,000/- were received by Ahsaan from Mohammad Deen and, therefore, Ahsaan has also been arrested under Section 29 of NDPS Act on 23.2.2021, who after remaining in police custody for three days, has been sent to judicial custody since 26.2.2021. 8. According to status report, efforts for searching Parveen were made in his village and in his relations and on 15.2.2021, his wife Nigam was asked to inform her husband to join the investigation on 15.2.2021, whereupon, Parveen along with his wife and daughter had shifted to his In-laws house at Atalpur, Meerut (UP) and after receiving reliable information about his presence in his In-laws house, police party reached at Meerut on 2.3.2021 where it was found that his mother-in-law Anita and father-in-law Raj Kumar, instead of sending him to Police Station Paonta Sahib, had sent him in relations in Rajasthan. 9. As per status report, it was found that Raj Kumar and Anita Devi had harboured petitioner Parveen Kumar and thereafter had helped him to fled from his in-laws house and therefore, Raj Kumar was arrested on 16.3.2021 under Section 27-A of NDPS Act read with Section 212 IPC. Raj Kumar is alsoin judicial custody since 15th March, 2021. 10. After arrest of his father-in-law, petitioner had approached District and Sessions Judge (Special Judge), Nahan on 8.3.2021 under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for availing anticipatory bail, but, his petition was dismissed on 10.3.2021 and thereafter, he had filed present petition in this Court. 11. It is stated in status report that Mohammad Deen had brought 680 Kg. poppy-straw from Jharkhand wherefrom 452.308 Kg. has been recovered and remaining quantity of poppy-straw is yet to be recovered and after obtaining anticipatory bail, though Parveen has joined the investigation, but is not cooperating in investigation and has denied the acquaintance with arrested persons including Ajmer and has stated that he has not been keeping mobile phone since last one year, whereas, from CDR of mobiles, it has been found that he had been using mobile number 98053-03964 most of times and on 10.2.2021 also, he had talks with Ajmer Singh on mobile for eight times and in addition, Ajmer Singh had also rung him for six times and he was in regular contact with Ajmer and other accused persons through Whatsapp calls. During interrogation, arrested co-accused have already disclosed that Parveen was also having other 4-5 SIMS which were being used by him. It is also stated that earlier also, Parveen was found involved in commission of offence under Section 15 of NDPS Act in case FIR No. 150 of 2020 dated 29.9.2020 and in that case, he was found in possession of 3.762 Kg. poppy-straw and he was enlarged on bail in that case on 31.10.2020 by District and Sessions Judge, Nahan. It is also submitted that co-accused Subhash, Deepak resident of Bijnour and Chaman Lal @ Tinku and Mushatkeen resident of Chhachhroli Haryana are still absconding. 12. Learned Deputy Advocate General has submitted that petitioner is member of a big racket involved in supplying the narcotic drug in the State and investigation is at the initial stage and there is credential evidence available on record with respect to involvement of petitioner as one of main accused in present case and despite availing benefit of anticipatory bail, he is not cooperating in investigation and his non-cooperation and falsehood has been proved from the call details record of mobile number being used by him. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has nothing to do with present case and he is being implicated on the basis of suspicion and also on the basis of alleged disclosure statements of co-accused, which cannot be taken into consideration against him in view of pronouncements of Apex Court in Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2020) AIR SC 5592; and Sanjay Chandra vs.Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40 and further that though it is true that another case under Section 15 of NDPS Act was registered against petitioner in September, 2020, however, in view of judgment of the Supreme Court passed in Mulana Mohammed Amir Rashadi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2012) 2 SCC 382 , past precedent of involvement of petitioner in commission of offence cannot be considered for accusing the petitioner in present case and for rejecting his bail on this count. He has further submitted that in view of decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Santosh vs. State of Maharashtra, (2017) 9 SCC 714 , refusal to confess by accused cannot be considered a non-cooperation by accused in investigation and thus, this ground cannot be taken for cancellation of bail. He has further submitted that in view of decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Santosh vs. State of Maharashtra, (2017) 9 SCC 714 , refusal to confess by accused cannot be considered a non-cooperation by accused in investigation and thus, this ground cannot be taken for cancellation of bail. Lastly, it is submitted that for principles culled out in judgment of Supreme Court in Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2016) 1 SCC 152 , petitioner is entitled for confirmation of his anticipatory bail granted to him. 14. It is also canvassed that for the purpose of recovery of alleged remaining part of contraband, personal liberty of petitioner guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India cannot be infringed. 15. It is well settled that interference by Court at the investigation stage, in normal course, is not warranted. However, Section 438 Cr.P.C. provides an exception to general principle, wherein power has been incorporated by Courts by reading it with Article 21 of Constitution of India, so as to keep arbitrary and unreasonable limitations on the personal liberty at bay. The essence of mandate of Article 21 of Constitution of India is a basic concept of Section 438 Cr.P.C. 16. Section 156 Cr.P.C. read with Section 157 Cr.PC empowers Police Officer to investigate and to arrest the offender during investigation in order to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case. Section 41 Cr.PC also empowers the Police Officer to arrest an offender, without an order from the Magistrate as provided under Sections 41(1)(b)(ii) and 41(1)(ba), in case Police Officer has reasons to believe on the basis of information that person has committed any offence referred in these Sections. Therefore, Police Officer/Investigating Officer is empowered to arrest the offender or suspect for proper investigation of offence as provided under Section 41 read with Section 157 Cr.P.C. 17. Article 21 of Constitution of India provides that no person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Arrest of an offender or suspect during investigation, as discussed supra, is duly prescribed in Code of Criminal Procedure, but at the same time, Code of Criminal Procedure also contains provisions for release of offender or suspect on bail by Magistrate, Sessions Court and High Court which include grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.PC. 18. Arrest of an offender or suspect during investigation, as discussed supra, is duly prescribed in Code of Criminal Procedure, but at the same time, Code of Criminal Procedure also contains provisions for release of offender or suspect on bail by Magistrate, Sessions Court and High Court which include grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.PC. 18. Balance has to be maintained between right of personal liberty and right of Investigating Agency to investigate and to arrest an offender for the purpose of investigation. 19. Undisputedly, bail is rule and jail is exception. But, at the same time, it is also to be kept in mind that provisions of Cr.PC empower a Police Officer to arrest not only the offender but also suspect in the given facts and circumstances, in consonance with provisions related thereto. Though provisions for bail have been provided in the Cr.PC, however Courts are also empowered to reject the bail subjecting the accused or suspect not only to police custody but also to judicial custody, even after completion of investigation, even if accused or suspect is no more required for interrogation or investigation by the Investigating Agency. Therefore, grant or refusal of bail, including anticipatory bail, is to be considered by considering relevant factors, parameters and principles enumerated and propounded by the Courts in various pronouncements. 20. In present case, considering the material placed before me, nature, gravity and seriousness of offence, quantum of contraband recovered and involvement of a group of persons in procuring and transporting the huge quantity of contraband to the State of HP and keeping in view the initial stage of investigation and also for the reason that though petitioner has denied acquaintance with Ajmer and other accused, however, he has been found in their regular contact as evident from CDR of mobile number being used by him, I am of the considered view that no case is made out for enlarging the petitioner on bail by exercising power under Section 438 Cr.PC as prayer for custodial interrogation of petitioner has been found just and valid. 21. So far as principles propounded in pronouncements referred supra, cited by petitioner are concerned, there is no quarrel in this regard. However, by taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the present case as brought in the notice of Court, I find that these judgments are of no help to the petitioner. 22. 21. So far as principles propounded in pronouncements referred supra, cited by petitioner are concerned, there is no quarrel in this regard. However, by taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the present case as brought in the notice of Court, I find that these judgments are of no help to the petitioner. 22. Accordingly, petition is dismissed with direction to petitioner to surrender before police/Investigating Officer.