ORDER : 1. Bail petitioner, namely Het Ram, who is behind the bars since 21.08.2021, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in Case FIR No. 80/2021, dated 18.08.2021, under Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short “the Act”) registered at Police Station Kumarsain, District Shimla, H.P. 2. Respondent-State has filed status report, in terms of order dated 08.10.2021 and ASI Jai Singh, Police Station Kumarsain, District Shimla, H.P. has also come present with record. Record perused and returned. Close scrutiny of status report/record, reveals that on 18.08.2021, police stopped Car bearing No. TO-821-HP-1210G being driven by person namely Tikkam Ram for checking and allegedly recovered one bag containing 1.135 kg. Charas, in the presence of independent witnesses. Since, no plausible explanation came to be rendered on record by person namely Tikkam Ram qua the possession of commercial quantity of contraband, police after completion of necessary codal formalities, lodged FIR, detailed hereinabove, against him and since then, he is behind the bars. During investigation, above-named Tikkam Ram disclosed to the police that he runs readymade garments shop at Nirmand, Disrict Kullu and therefrom he earns sufficient money. He stated that person namely Nitu, came to his shop for buying clothes and told to him that whenever, he requires charas, he can contact him He further disclosed to the police that since he had suffered losses on account of COVID-19, he gave telephonic call to person namely Nitu for purchase of charas, so that he could make his losses. He stated that person namely Nitu asked him to pay sum of Rs. 1 lac in advance but since on that day, his Googlepay account was not working, he requested his cousin brother Het Ram, i.e. present bail petitioner to transfer amount in the bank account of above-named person Nitu. Present bail petitioner namely Het Ram, on the askance of Tikkarm Ram, transferred sum of Rs. 72,000/- in total in the account of person namely Nitu through Googlepay account. As per investigation, present bail petitioner Het Ram after transferring sum of Rs. 72,000/- in the account of Nitu, also went alongwith main accused Tikkam Ram to Village Baga Sarahan on 16.08.2021 for procuring charas. 72,000/- in total in the account of person namely Nitu through Googlepay account. As per investigation, present bail petitioner Het Ram after transferring sum of Rs. 72,000/- in the account of Nitu, also went alongwith main accused Tikkam Ram to Village Baga Sarahan on 16.08.2021 for procuring charas. After reaching Baga Sarahan, main accused Tikkam Ram, went to meet Nitu and present bail petitioner kept on sitting in the car. When recovery of charas was effected from the car of the main accused Tikkam Ram on 18.08.2021, present bail petitioner was not found sitting in the car. In the aforesaid background, present bail petitioner also came to be named in the FIR and since 21.08.2021, he is also 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. Desh Raj Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, while fairly admitting factum with regard to filing of challan in the competent court of law, 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. While referring to status report, Mr. Thakur, further contends that there is sufficient material available on record suggestive of the fact that bail petitioner after having transferred sum of Rs. 72,000/- in the bank account of person namely Nitu, also accompanied main accused Tikkam Ram on 16.08.2021 to Baga Sarahan for procuring charas and as such, it cannot be said that he has been falsely implicated. 4. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that on 18.08.2021, 1.135 Kg charas was recovered from the car being driven by main accused Tikkam Ram and at that time, present bail petitioner was not present in the car. Bail petitioner has been named in the FIR on the basis of disclosure made by main accused Tikkam Ram that on his askance, bail petitioner had transferred sum of Rs. 72,000/- in the bank account of person namely Nitu from whom, he had procured commercial quantity of charas. Bail petitioner has been named in the FIR on the basis of disclosure made by main accused Tikkam Ram that on his askance, bail petitioner had transferred sum of Rs. 72,000/- in the bank account of person namely Nitu from whom, he had procured commercial quantity of charas. As per own statement of main accused Tikkam Ram, he after having contacted person namely Nitu for purchase of charas had requested present bail petitioner Het Ram, who happens to be his first cousin, for transferring money in the bank account of Nitu. Main accused TikkamRam, told present bail petitioner that since his Googlepay account is closed, he is unable to make transaction and as such, on his askance, present bail petitioner transferred sum of Rs. 72,000/- from his bank account to person namely Nitu through Googlepay account and thereafter, allegedly, he accompanied main accused Tikkam Ram to Baga Sarahan, from where, main accused Tikkam Ram purchased charas from the person namely Nitu. Allegedly, charas was purchased on 16.08.2021 and thereafter, the same was recovered from the conscious possession of main accused Tikkam Ram on 18.08.2021 while he was alone in the car. 5. It is quite apparent from the disclosure made by the main accused Tikkam Ram that at no point of time, present bail petitioner had prior meeting of mind with main accused Tikkam Ram for sale and purchase of charas, rather, he on the askance of his cousin i.e. main accused Tikkam Ram, transferred sum of Rs. 72,000/- in the account of person namely Nitu. Main accused Tikkam Ram, has nowhere stated that he had disclosed factum with regard to purchase of charas by him from Nitu to present bail petitioner, rather he has simply stated that since his Googlepay account was closed, he could not transfer money, which he otherwise was urgently required to transfer to Nitu. Otherwise also, there is no material available on record suggestive of the fact that present bail petitioner had any kind of connivance with main accused Tikkam Ram from whose, conscious possession, charas came to be recovered. Though. Police in its status report has claimed that present bail petitioner had gone to Baga Sarahan on 16.08.2021, with main accused Tikkam Ram for purchase of charas, but such fact is yet to be proved in accordance with law by leading cogent and convincing evidence. Though. Police in its status report has claimed that present bail petitioner had gone to Baga Sarahan on 16.08.2021, with main accused Tikkam Ram for purchase of charas, but such fact is yet to be proved in accordance with law by leading cogent and convincing evidence. Since, present bail petitioner is first cousin of main accused Tikkam Ram, there is a reason to presume and believe at this stage, that present bail petitioner may have accompanied main accused Tikkam Ram on his request without knowing the purpose of his visit to Baga Sarahan. His call details report adduced on record by Investigating Agency, nowhere suggests communication, if any, inter se present bail petitioner and supplier Nitu, rather same clearly reveals that main accused Tikkam Ram was in constant touch of supplier Nitu. No doubt, in the case at hand, financial transaction, adduced on record suggests that sum of Rs. 72,000/- came to be transferred from the Googlepay account of present bail petitioner, but since, accused Tikkam Ram has categorically disclosed to the police that transaction was made at his behest, it would be too premature, at this stage, to conclude the complicity, if any, of present bail petitioner in the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 20 and 29 of NDPS, Act. Though, aforesaid aspects of the matter are 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. Though, quantity of contraband recovered in the case at hand is commercial and as such, rigours of Section 37 are attracted, but bare perusal of Section 37 of the Act, clearly suggests that there is no complete bar/prohibition to grant bail to the accused found in possession of commercial quantity of contraband, rather court after having afforded due opportunity of being heard to the public prosecutor can proceed to grant bail even in the cases of commercial quantity, if it is satisfied that there are reasonable ground for believing that the accused is not guilty of offence under the Act and there is no likelihood of his being indulged in such like activities again during trial. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as have been discussed hereinabove, this Court deems it fit to enlarge bail petitioner on bail, at this stage, during trial. 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 and as such, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the bail petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period during trial. Apart from this, this Court finds that no case in past stands registered against the present bail petitioner which fact otherwise, indicates that petitioner is not involved in illegal trade of narcotic and as such, his prayer for grant of bail, deserves to be considered sympathetically being first offender. 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. 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 227/2018, Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, 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 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 vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 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 un-convicted 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 un-convicted person for the propose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson.” 9. In Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta vs. CBI, 2017 (5) SCC 218 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: “This Court in Sanjay Chandra vs. 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 un-convicted 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 vs. 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. (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. 2,00,000/- with two local sureties 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. (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.