ORDER : 1. Petitioner is accused in case registered, vide FIR No. 14 of 2021 dated 27.03.2021, at Police Station, Sainj, District Kullu, H.P. under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’). 2. Petitioner seeks bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Code’) in the above noted case on the ground that his implication is false. He alleges that no recovery was effected from him. As per petitioner, he had been working as agricultural labour in District Kullu and on the fateful night he had taken lift in the vehicle of Ram Krishan, who was acquainted with him as they hailed from the same area. 3. It has also been canvassed on behalf of petitioner that he has no previous criminal history. He is permanent resident of Village Luhnu Kanaita, P.O. Chandpur, Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P. He belongs to a very poor family and the entire burden of maintaining the family is on him. 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 the course of justice. 4. On notice, respondent has placed on record status report. The case of respondent is that on 27.3.2021, 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. HP-24C-6968 (Pickup) 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 1 KG 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 petitioner were arrested on 30.03.2021. As per the case of police, they disclosed that they had purchased the recovered contraband from Dave Ram, who was also arrested on the same day. As per disclosure made by Dave Ram, he had purchased the contraband from Saina Devi on 26.03.2021. The investigation is stated to have been completed. 5. Ram Krishan and petitioner were arrested on 30.03.2021. As per the case of police, they disclosed that they had purchased the recovered contraband from Dave Ram, who was also arrested on the same day. As per disclosure made by Dave Ram, he had purchased the contraband from Saina Devi on 26.03.2021. The investigation is stated to have been completed. Challan has been filed and matter is pending before learned Special Judge, Kullu. 6. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Senior Additional Advocate General, for the State. 7. It has been argued on behalf of petitioner that he had taken lift in the vehicle of Ram Krishan to visit his home as he was working as an agricultural labour in District Kullu. It has further been stated on behalf of petitioner that he ran from the spot as he was asked to do so by Ram Krishan. He was not aware about the transactions relating to contraband allegedly recovered from the other vehicle. 8. 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 offences under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act. Thus, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act will be applicable in the instant case. 9. 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 Cr.P.C. 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. 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. 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 Cr.P.C. 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.” 10. 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.” 11. 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.” 11. 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. 12. Coming to the facts of the case, no credible explanation has been given by petitioner regarding his presence in the vehicle of Ram Krishan at the time of its apprehension. The explanation that petitioner ran away with Ram Krishan on his asking does not inspire confidence. In case petitioner initially ran from the spot in the state of confusion, he could have easily reported to the police after regaining his senses and have explained to them his innocence. It is also not believable that petitioner had taken lift from Ram Krishan. The timings do not lend any credence to the version of petitioner, more so, when petitioner has not provided the details as to with whom he was working as agricultural labour and from which place he had boarded the vehicle of Ram Krishan. The vehicle was apprehended at 4.30 A.M. in the morning at Larji, which is hardly at a distance of 20-25 KM from Kullu. It is hard to believe that petitioner could have been waiting for lift in the mid of night. 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. Therefore, Section 37 of NDPS Act comes into play and petitioner’s right, if any, to be released on bail gets clogged. 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. 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 and 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 fulfill the parameters of Section 37(1)(b) and there was non-application of mind by the High Court. 25. The Court observed that merely making a finding on the possession of the contraband did not fulfill 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.” 17. In view of above discussion, I find no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. 18. Any observation made hereinabove shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made hereinabove.