ORDER : 1. Bail petitioner, namely Saurabh Thakur, who is behind the bars since 07.07.2021, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 439 Cr.PC, for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 55/2021, dated 07.07.2021, under Sections 21 & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short “the Act”) registered at Police Station Parwanoo, District Solan, H.P. 2. Status report filed by the respondent-State, in terms of order dated 11.08.2021, reveals that on 07.07.2021, police after having received secret information that two persons, namely, Manjit and Saurabh Thakur, travelling in Bus bearing No.HP-10A-9599, coming from Delhi to Rohru, may be possessing Chitta/Heroin, stopped aforesaid Bus at Timber Trail Chowk Parwanoo and allegedly recovered 32.58 grams of Chitta/Heroin from blue coloured T-Shirt being carried by co-accused Manjit in his hands. Since, bail petitioner Saurabh Thakur as well as other person namely Manjit, were unable to render proper explanation qua the possession of aforesaid intermediate quantity of Chitta/Heroin, police after completion of necessary codal formalities, lodged FIR detailed hereinabove against them and since then, both are behind the bars. Since, investigation in this case is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of bail. 3. Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General, while fairly admitting factum with regard to completion of investigation, contends that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, but keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by him, he does not deserve any leniency and as such, prayer having been made on his behalf for grant of bail may be rejected. Mr. Bhatnagar, further contends that though intermediate quantity of Chitta/Heroin came to be recovered from the T-Shirt being carried by co-accused Manjit, but since, both the accused had gone together to Delhi to buy aforesaid quantity of contraband, it cannot be concluded, at this stage, that petitioner has been falsely implicated and as such, his application for grant of bail may be rejected. 4. 4. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that on 07.07.2021, though police had received information that persons namely Manjit and Saurabh Thakur are travelling in a Bus bearing No. HP-10A-9599 along with contraband, but as per story of prosecution, 32.58 grams of Chitta/Heroin came to be recovered from the blue coloured T-Shirt being carried by co-accused Manjit. No doubt, both the accused were travelling together, but since, intermediate quantity of contraband came to be recovered from the conscious possession of co-accused Manjit, it would be too premature at this stage to conclude complicity of the petitioner in the case at hand, especially when there is nothing on record that in past, petitioner had been indulging in such activities. As per prosecution, both the accused, disclosed that they purchased the aforesaid quantity of contraband from some unknown person at Delhi, but such disclosure/revelation, if any, made by present bail petitioner may not be of much significance at this stage, for the reasons that intermediate quantity of alleged contraband never came to be recovered from his possession, rather from the T-Shirt being carried by co-accused Manjit. 5. Leaving everything aside, this Court finds from the record that contraband allegedly recovered in the case is of intermediate quantity and as such, rigors of Section 37 of the Act, are otherwise not attracted. Since, it has come on record that petitioner as well as co-accused purchased aforesaid quantity of contraband for their own consumption, there is a reason to infer that petitioner has become drug addict and as such, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping him behind the bars for indefinite period during trial, rather he needs to be provided medical aid at first opportunity so that he is brought back to the mainstream. No doubt offence alleged to have been committed by the bail petitioner has adverse impact on society, but this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that petitioner being young person is also required to be provided adequate opportunity to get himself treated so that he does not repeat such offence again. No doubt offence alleged to have been committed by the bail petitioner has adverse impact on society, but this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that petitioner being young person is also required to be provided adequate opportunity to get himself treated so that he does not repeat such offence again. Though, case at hand is to be decided by the Court below in totality of evidence collected on record by prosecution, but keeping in view the aforesaid glaring aspects of the matter, this Court sees no reason to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in jail for indefinite period, especially when nothing remains to be recovered from him. Apprehension expressed by learned Additional Advocate General that in the event of bail petitioner being enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice, can be best met by putting him to the stringent conditions. Otherwise also Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court have held in catena of judgments, that till the time, guilt of a person is not proved in accordance with law, he/she is deemed to be innocent. 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 227/2018, Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., decided on 6.2.2018, has categorically held that a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. Hon’ble Apex Court further held that while considering prayer for grant of bail, it is important to ascertain whether the accused was participating in the investigations to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and was not absconding or not appearing when required by the investigating officer. Hon’ble Apex Court has further held that if an accused is not hiding from the investigating officer or is hiding due to some genuine and expressed fear of being victimized, it would be a factor that a judge would need to consider in an appropriate case. The relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced as under: “2. A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. 3. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case. 4. While so introspecting, among the factors that need to be considered is whether the accused was arrested during investigations when that person perhaps has the best opportunity to tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses. If the investigating officer does not find it necessary to arrest an accused person during investigations, a strong case should be made out for placing that person in judicial custody after a charge sheet is filed. Similarly, it is important to ascertain whether the accused was participating in the investigations to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and was not absconding or not appearing when required by the investigating officer. Surely, if an accused is not hiding from the investigating officer or is hiding due to some genuine and expressed fear of being victimised, it would be a factor that a judge would need to consider in an appropriate case. It is also necessary for the judge to consider whether the accused is a first-time offender or has been accused of other offences and if so, the nature of such offences and his or her general conduct. It is also necessary for the judge to consider whether the accused is a first-time offender or has been accused of other offences and if so, the nature of such offences and his or her general conduct. The poverty or the deemed indigent status of an accused is also an extremely important factor and even Parliament has taken notice of it by incorporating an Explanation to Section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. An equally soft approach to incarceration has been taken by Parliament by inserting Section 436A in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 5. To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be adopted by a judge, while dealing with an application for remanding a suspect or an accused person to police custody or judicial custody. There are several reasons for this including maintaining the dignity of an accused person, howsoever poor that person might be, the requirements of Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact that there is enormous overcrowding in prisons, leading to social and other problems as noticed by this Court in In Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons. 7. Needless to say object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused in the trial and the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial. Otherwise, bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Court has to keep in mind nature of accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved in that crime. 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases 49; held as under:- “ The object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The Courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. Detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, “necessity” is the operative test. In India , it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the propose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson.” 9. In Manoranjana Sinh Alias Gupta versus CBI 2017 (5) SCC 218 , The Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:- “ This Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, also involving an economic offence of formidable magnitude, while dealing with the issue of grant of bail, had observed that deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment unless it is required to ensure that an accused person would stand his trial when called upon and that the courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and found guilty. It was underlined that the object of bail is neither punitive or preventive. It was underlined that the object of bail is neither punitive or preventive. This Court sounded a caveat that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of a conduct whether an accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him to taste of imprisonment as a lesson. It was enunciated that since the jurisdiction to grant bail to an accused pending trial or in appeal against conviction is discretionary in nature, it has to be exercised with care ad caution by balancing the valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the society in general. It was elucidated that the seriousness of the charge, is no doubt one of the relevant considerations while examining the application of bail but it was not only the test or the factor and the grant or denial of such privilege, is regulated to a large extent by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. That detention in custody of under trial prisoners for an indefinite period would amount to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution was highlighted.” 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and Another (2010) 14 SCC 496 , has laid down the following principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, bail petitioner has carved out a case for grant of bail, accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in aforesaid FIR, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, bail petitioner has carved out a case for grant of bail, accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in aforesaid FIR, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial Court, with following conditions: a. He shall make himself available for the purpose of interrogation, if so required and regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application; b. He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever; c. He shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and d. He shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. 12. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty or violates any of the conditions imposed upon him, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail. 13. Any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of this application alone. The petition stands accordingly disposed of.