ORDER : Petitioner is accused in case registered vide F.I.R. No. 14 of 2021 dated 27.03.2021, registered at Police Station Sainj, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, “NDPS Act”). 2. Petitioner seeks bail under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, in the above noted case, on the grounds that her implication is false. Nothing was recovered from her and she has been arrayed as an accused with the aid of Section 29 of NDPS Act. Her implication on the sole statement of co-accused Dabey Ram is not sustainable. Further, it has been stated that because of land dispute with the petitioner herein, Dabey Ram named her. There is no corroboration to the statement of Dabey Ram. 3. It has also been canvassed on behalf of the petitioner that she has no previous criminal history. She is permanent resident of ward No. 03, Tamhol office Raila, Sub-Tehsil Sainj, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh. The investigation of the case is complete and there is no justification to prolong the custody of petitioner. There is no apprehension of petitioner fleeing from course of justice. 4. On notice, respondent has placed on record status report. The case of the respondent is that on 27.03.2021, police party headed by HC Anupam Kumar No.13 had laid “Nakka” at place Larji. At about 4:30 A.M. a vehicle bearing No. HP-24B-6994 (Tata Tigor) was stopped for checking. Immediately, another vehicle bearing No. HP24C-6968 (Pick-Up) followed and stopped behind the Tata Tigor car. Two persons occupying vehicle bearing No. HP-24B-6994 immediately alighted and ran towards river. Vehicle bearing No. HP-24C-6968 (Pick-Up) was occupied by its driver named Vinod Kumar. On search of said vehicle HP-24C-6968 “Charas” was recovered, which weighed 1KG and 555 grams. Vinod Kumar was arrested. As per his version, the recovered “Charas” belonged to Ram Krishan and Deep Ram @ Nittu, who were occupants of the car bearing No. HP-24B-6994. 5. Ram Krishan and Deep Ram @ Nittu were arrested on 30.03.2021. They disclosed that they had purchased the recovered contraband from Dabey Ram, who was also arrested on the same day. As per disclosure made by Dabey Ram, he had purchased the contraband from the bail petitioner on 26.03.2021. The bail petitioner was arrayed as accused and was arrested on 01.06.2021. 6. They disclosed that they had purchased the recovered contraband from Dabey Ram, who was also arrested on the same day. As per disclosure made by Dabey Ram, he had purchased the contraband from the bail petitioner on 26.03.2021. The bail petitioner was arrayed as accused and was arrested on 01.06.2021. 6. Bail petitioner had earlier preferred a petition under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure being Cr.M.P(M) No. 840 of 2021, which was dismissed by a co-ordinate bench of this Court on 31.05.2021. 7. As per the case of the respondent, during investigation bail petitioner has denied having sold contraband to Dabey Ram. Petitioner had raised a plea that Dabey Ram had named her due to a land dispute inter-se them. All the accused namely, Vinod Kumar, Ram Krishan, Deep Ram @ Nittu and Dabey Ram and bail petitioner are in judicial custody. The challan has been presented in the Court and the matter is pending before learned Special Judge, Kullu. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General for the State. 9. It has been argued on behalf of bail petitioner that her implication on the sole statement of Dabey Ram, is not sustainable, especially, when there is no corroborative evidence against her. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted with vehemence that there has been no telephonic conversion between the bail petitioner and Dabey Ram. As per petitioner, the evidence collected by Investigating Agency only revealed exchange of telephone calls between her and Sarla Devi, wife of Dabey Ram and on the basis of alleged telephonic conversion between the bail petitioner and Sarla Devi, she cannot be said to be a privy to the crime. 10. It has also been submitted on behalf of petitioner that since no recovery was effected from petitioner, rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act will not apply. Petitioner has no criminal history. Reliance has been placed on the bail orders passed by co-ordinate benches of this court in Cr.M.P.(M) No. 705 of 2020, titled as Kundan Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, decided on 4th June, 2020, Cr.M.P.(M) No. 299 of 2020, titled as Satish Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, decided on 29th June, 2020 and Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1939 of 2020 titled as Nawal Kishore vs. State of H.P., decided on 31st December, 2020. 11. Per contra, Mr. 11. Per contra, Mr. Hemanshu Misra, learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the bail petition of petitioner with vehemence. His submission is that there is sufficient material collected by Investigating Agency showing involvement of the petitioner in the crime. The call detail records of the mobile number of petitioner reveal that four calls were exchanged between petitioner and Sarla Devi on 26.03.2021 within a gap of about four hours and one call was made on 27.03.2021. As per him, prior to or after above noted five calls, no other calls were found to have been exchanged between petitioner and Sarla Devi, which suggests that the calls were made for the purpose of negotiating the deal of sale of contraband with Dabey Ram. 12. It is not in dispute that commercial quantity of contraband is involved in the instant case. The challan has been presented in the Court for the offences under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of NDPS Act. Thus, the rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act will be applicable in the present case. 13. In State of Kerala and others Vs. Rajesh and others, (2020) 12 SCC 122 , it has been held as under : - 19. The scheme of Section 37 reveals that the exercise of power to grant bail is not only subject to the limitations contained under Section 439 of the CrPC, but is also subject to the limitation placed by Section 37 which commences with non obstante clause. The operative part of the said section is in the negative form prescribing the enlargement of bail to any person accused of commission of an offence under the Act, unless twin conditions are satisfied. The first condition is that the prosecution must be given an opportunity to oppose the application; and the second, is that the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence. If either of these two conditions is not satisfied, the ban for granting bail operates. 20. The expression “reasonable grounds” means something more than prima facie grounds. It contemplates substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. The reasonable belief contemplated in the provision requires existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. The expression “reasonable grounds” means something more than prima facie grounds. It contemplates substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. The reasonable belief contemplated in the provision requires existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. In the case on hand, the High Court seems to have completely overlooked the underlying object of Section 37 that in addition to the limitations provided under the CrPC, or any other law for the time being in force, regulating the grant of bail, its liberal approach in the matter of bail under the NDPS Act is indeed uncalled for. 14. Similarly, in Satpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2018) 13 SCC 813 , the three Judges Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- 3. Under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, when a person is accused of an offence punishable under Section 19 or 24 or 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity, he shall not be released on bail unless the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and in case a Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person is not guilty of the alleged offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Materials on record are to be seen and the antecedents of the accused is to be examined to enter such a satisfaction. These limitations are in addition to those prescribed under the Cr.P.C or any other law in force on the grant of bail. In view of the seriousness of the offence, the law makers have consciously put such stringent restrictions on the discretion available to the court while considering application for release of a person on bail. It is unfortunate that the provision has not been noticed by the High Court. And it is more unfortunate that the same has not been brought to the notice of the Court.” 15. It is unfortunate that the provision has not been noticed by the High Court. And it is more unfortunate that the same has not been brought to the notice of the Court.” 15. Thus, in the teeth of section 37 of NDPS Act, accused can be released on bail in the cases involving commercial quantity of contraband, if all three conditions are satisfied viz opportunity of opposing the bail is granted to the prosecutor, the Court records satisfaction to the effect that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused not guilty of such offence and that he/she with certainty can be believed not to commit the same offence during the period of bail. 16. Coming to the facts of the case no credible explanation has been given by petitioner regarding her repeated conversation with wife of Dabey Ram on 26th and 27th of March, 2021. Nothing has been placed on record to suggest that there was some pending dispute between Dabey Ram and petitioner which could be the reason for her false implication. Otherwise also it is not understandable that in case of dispute between them, what was the occasion to have frequent phone calls between petitioner and Sarla Devi on 26.03.2021 and 27.03.2021. 17. It is no one’s case that Dabey Ram and his wife were not residing together or had strained relations. In the given situation, it could be the modus operandi of Dabey Ram not to converse with petitioner from his mobile and for that reason might have used mobile phone of his wife. Merely because mobile phones of petitioner and Sarla Devi were not seized by Police, will not help the cause of petitioner. The omission to seize mobile phones may not make a difference; in case it is otherwise proved that the alleged mobile numbers of petitioner and Sarla Devi in fact belonged to them. 18. Thus, the implication of petitioner prima facie cannot be said to be without justification. That being so, this court is unable to return findings that there are reasonable grounds to believe that petitioner is not guilty of charged offence. In addition, the possibility of petitioner indulging in similar offence during bail can also not be ruled out. Therefore, section 37 of NDPS Act comes into play and petitioner’s right, if any, to be released on bail gets clogged. 19. In addition, the possibility of petitioner indulging in similar offence during bail can also not be ruled out. Therefore, section 37 of NDPS Act comes into play and petitioner’s right, if any, to be released on bail gets clogged. 19. The ingredients of Section 37 of NDPS Act are to be read conjunctively and absence of any single condition thereof disentitles a person from relief of bail. 20. An argument has further been raised on behalf of petitioner that as per admitted case of respondent no recovery was effected from petitioner, therefore, Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not be applicable. The argument so raised deserves to be rejected for the reason that Section 29 of the NDPS Act speaks about abetment or conspiracy that makes the person liable for punishment for the same offence of which abetment or conspiracy is alleged. Section 29 of the NDPS Act carves out an independent offence and will be covered under the expression “and also the offences involving commercial quantity” used in Section 37 (1) (b) of the NDPS Act. Thus, whenever a person is accused of offence under Section 29 of the NDPS Act and the involvement is of commercial quantity of contraband, undoubtedly, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act shall apply. 21. Even otherwise, the mere absence of recovery of contraband from the possession of an accused shall not exempt him from the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Reference can be made to a recent judgment dated 22.9.2021 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1043 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 1771 of 2021), titled Union of India through Narcotics Control Bureau, Lucknow vs. Md. Nawaz Khan, wherein it has been held as under : “24. As regards the finding of the High Court regarding absence of recovery of the contraband from the possession of the respondent, we note that in Union of India vs. Rattan Mallik, (2009) 2 SCC 624 , a two-judge Bench of this Court cancelled the bail of an accused and reversed the finding of the High Court, which had held that as the contraband (heroin) was recovered from a specially made cavity above the cabin of a truck, no contraband was found in the ‘possession’ of the accused. The Court observed that merely making a finding on the possession of the contraband did not fulfil the parameters of Section 37 (1) (b) and there was non-application of mind by the High Court. 25. In line with the decision of this Court in Rattan Mallik (Supra), we are of the view that a finding of the absence of possession of the contraband on the person of the respondent by the High Court in the impugned order does not absolve it of the level of scrutiny required under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act.” 22. With due deference to the bail orders cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, no help can be derived by petitioner from these orders for the reasons that those have been passed in peculiar facts and circumstances involved in each of them. The material available against the petitioner in present case, probably, was missing in such cases. 23. In view of above discussion, I find no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. 24. The expression of opinion, if any, hereinabove shall be construed only for the purpose of disposal of this petition and shall in no manner influence learned trial court during the course of trial, which shall be decided on its own merits uninfluenced by this order.