JUDGMENT Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. - The instant bail application has been maintained by the petitioner under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail, in the event of his arrest, in case FIR No. 21 of 2021, dated 09.02.2021, under Section 21-61-85 of ND&PS Act, registered at Police Station Damtal, District Kangra, H.P. 2. As per the petitioner, he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, so he may be released on bail. 3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution, on 09.02.2021, a police team was on routine patrol duty and at about 03:50 p.m was present at place known as Toki Excise Barrier, where the team got a secret tip-off that one Sandeep Kumar @ Happy (petitioner herein), who is resident of Jalandhar and brother-in-law of Rakesh Kumar (local resident), alongwith his family, coming to Channi village from Mukerian and has narcotics. At about 4:20 p.m. a vehicle, having registration No. HP97-4496, speedily crossed the barrier, so the police started chasing it, however, the driver of the vehicle took a slew towards Mukerian. The driver of the above vehicle drove to a tourist lodge and after stopping the vehicle, he jumped over a wall and ran away. Police found a girl sitting in the vehicle and pursuit for the driver began, however, despite extensive efforts he could not nabbed. On being inquired, the girl sitting in the vehicle divulged her name as Bharti, resident of Haryana and she disclosed that the Sandeep Kumar @ Happy (driver of the vehicle) is her friend. She further disclosed that she had accompanied the petitioner from Jalandhar and they were going to village Channi, but on seeing police the petitioner fled away. Thereafter, in presence of the independent witnesses, the vehicle was searched and a transparent envelop, stuffed with some brownish substance, was recovered. The recovered substance was checked through drug detection kit and found to be heroin, which weighed 53 grams. Thereafter, the police completed all the codal formalities. Statements of the witnesses were recorded, spot map was prepared and a case under the apt section of ND&PS Act was registered. Co-accused Bharti was arrested and medically examined. The recovered substance was checked through drug detection kit and found to be heroin, which weighed 53 grams. Thereafter, the police completed all the codal formalities. Statements of the witnesses were recorded, spot map was prepared and a case under the apt section of ND&PS Act was registered. Co-accused Bharti was arrested and medically examined. The recovered contraband, on being chemically tested, found to be sample of Diacetyl morphine (heroin). During the course of investigation, it was unearthed that co-accused Bharti has hand in glove with the petitioner and she knew that contraband is being transported by the petitioner. It has further come in the investigation earlier also co-accused Bharti had association with the petitioner and they were dealing in drugs together. As per the police, five more cases have been registered against the accused and out of five cases four cases are under the ND&PS Act. The petitioner is very clever person and he is habitual offender and spreading the menace of drugs in the society. The custody of the petitioner is required for ascertaining the real source of the narcotics and for further investigation. Lastly, it is prayed that the instant bail application may be dismissed, as the petitioner is resident of Haryana, thus in a position to flee from justice or tamper with the prosecution evidence, he is very clever person and a habitual offender, as four more cases under the ND&PS Act have been registered against him, so in case the petitioner, at this stage, is enlarged on bail, he may jump over the bail. Moreover, his custody is required for ascertaining the real source of the narcotics. 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. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the instant case. He has further argued that the petitioner is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He has further argued that the recovered quantity of contraband is intermediate quantity. He has further argued that the petitioner is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He has further argued that the recovered quantity of contraband is intermediate quantity. He has further argued that the learned Trial court has already enlarged co-accused Bharti on bail, vide order dated 16.03.2021, so the petitioner may also be enlarged on bail, as nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner and the investigation is almost complete. He has prayed that the bail application be allowed in the above backdrop. 6. At this stage, considering the manner in which the offence is alleged to have been committed, the fact that the petitioner has evaded his arrest and chosen to file five consecutive pre-arrest bail applications, out of five, four were either dismissed by the learned Trial Court/this Court or withdrawn by the petitioner, so the instant is the fifth attempt to get bail, however, the fact remains that the police still has to ascertain the real source of the contraband, also considering the fact that the petitioner is a habitual offender and already booked in four more ND&PS cases, the fact that the petitioner is resident of Haryana, thus he is in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence or to flee from justice, considering the quantity of the recovered contraband, the fact that custody of the petitioner is required for crucial investigation, which is being carried-out by the police, the fact that even if the co-accused has been enlarged on bail by the learned Trial Court, the petitioner cannot fetch any benefit from the same, as he initially evaded his arrest by fleeing from the spot of occurrence, then by not joining the investigation and now he is trying tooth and nail to get pre-arrest bail, either by filing successive bail petitions or by evading his arrest, thus, considering his role in the alleged offence, this Court finds that there cannot be parity amongst the petitioner and the co-accused, who has been enlarged on bail by the learned Trial Court. At the same point of time considering the overall facets of the case and without elaborately discussing the same at this stage, this Court finds that the present is not 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. 7. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the instant petition deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. 8. It goes without saying that the observations made hereinabove are only confined for the adjudication of the instant case and same shall have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the main case, which shall be adjudicated on its own merits.