ORDER : Petitioners have approached this Court, under Section 439 Criminal Procedure Code (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’), for granting them bail in case FIR No. 21 of 2021 dated 11.02.2021, registered under Sections 15, 29, 27-A of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter in short ‘NDPS Act’) in Police Station Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur (H.P.). 2. Status Report stands filed, wherein it is brought on record that on 11.02.2021, at about 6 a.m., on the basis of reliable information that from Truck No. HP-11-4991 moving towards Banjara Basti huge poppy-straw can be recovered, the said information was transmitted to Sub Divisional Police Officer as provided under Section 42 (2) of NDPS Act and police party had rushed towards Banjara Basti where aforesaid Truck was found coming towards Satiwala Chowk main road. However, on seeing the PCR van of police, person driving the Truck, after parking it came out from driver side and had fled towards Yamuna River by taking benefit of darkness and dense fog, and despite taking help of torch and mobile light, he could not be chased by police officials, and during checking of Truck, 8 plastic bags were found in rear portion of Truck and on opening of one bag, poppy-straw was found therein, which created suspicion that other 7 plastic bags might have been containing poppy-straw, whereupon house owners of houses, adjacent to the spot, were asked to join search and seizure process, but, by citing their difficulties, they refused to come on spot, whereupon Panchayat Pardhan Anjana and Up-Pardhan Satnam Singh were called on spot from their houses through PCR van and were asked to join search and seizure process, but, they also refused to join as independent witnesses by referring their own restrictions. Thereafter, a Constable was sent to Toll Tax Barrier Bahral in search of independent witness wherefrom Toll Tax Barrier employee Arun Sharma agreed to become an independent witness and thus, he was associated in search and seizure process. Thereafter, 8 plastic bags were unloaded from Truck and each bag was opened and checked, wherein poppy-straw was found. On weighing with electronic scale available in police vehicle, in total 200.278 Kg poppy-straw was found in those bags. Thereafter, by sending a ruka, FIR was registered in Police Station and recovered contraband was seized and taken in possession by Investigating Officer. On weighing with electronic scale available in police vehicle, in total 200.278 Kg poppy-straw was found in those bags. Thereafter, by sending a ruka, FIR was registered in Police Station and recovered contraband was seized and taken in possession by Investigating Officer. After that, SI Gian Singh along with police officials had gone to Khaira valley of Yamuna river in search of accused. In that valley also, he found 6 plastic bags of poppy-straw and two spades and one belcha kept in pits of sand under cover of bushes. In these bags, in total 150.500 Kg poppy-straw was found, which was also taken in possession along with belcha and spades. 3. During investigation, Truck owner Ajmer Singh (petitioner) was interrogated, who had disclosed that on 10.2.2021 Parveen Kumar resident of Satiwala, who was his neighbour, had approached him in the morning for his Truck to shift the goods therein and he (Ajmer) had agreed for that and in the evening Parveen and Subhash had come to his house and asked him to bring the Truck near Reliance Petrol Pump, Taruwala by saying that both of them would meet him there, whereupon, Ajmer had driven his Truck from his house and Parveen and Subhash had followed him in his (Ajmer’s) Alto car and thereafter, Parveen had telephonically informed Ajmer that Mohammad Deen @ Kala and Chaman @ Tinku will meet him before the petrol pump and asked him (Ajmer) to hand over the key of Truck to them and accordingly he (Ajmer) had handed over the key of Truck to Mohammad Deen and Chaman @ Tinku and started coming back on foot towards Badripur and by that time, Parveen and Subhash, who had brought his car, handed over the car to him and thereafter he (Ajmer) went home. 4. 4. It is stated in status report that since 12.02.2021, police kept on searching Mohammad Deen @ Kala, Chaman @ Tinku, Subuash and Parveen in their homes, but, they had absconded to avoid their arrest and thereafter, on 19.2.2021, Mohammad Deen @ Kala and Budh Ram could be traced after great difficulty and were associated in the investigation alongwith Ajmer Singh and during interrogation, Mohammad Deen had disclosed that poppy-straw was brought out of State in another Truck with help of Parveen, Subhash and Chaman @ Tinku and thereafter, Mohammad Deen @ Kala, Ajmer Singh and Budh Ram were arrested on 19.02.2021 and their police remand was obtained on 20.02.2021. 5. As per status report, on 20.02.2021, Mohammad Deen had made a disclosure statement under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act in the presence of independent witness Gaurav Dhiman, Block Development Officer Paonta Sahib and ASI Ram Lal and in pursuant thereto, 4 bags of poppy-straw were recovered from Satiwala forest/Khudd wherein in total 101.530 Kg. poppy-straw was recovered. 6. The recovered contraband was sent for chemical analysis to the State FSL Jundga and it has been reported by State FSL that recovered material was poppy-straw. 7. As per status report, Budh Ram had used his Tractor No. HP-17D-9357 for loading and unloading the poppy-straw under instructions of Parveen Kumar petitioner and car of Ajmer bearing No. HP-17E-9340 was used by Parveen Kumar and Subhash and another car HP-17F-4020 was also used by Mohammad Deen @ Kala and Mushatkeen to procure poppy-straw from Jharkhand and to load in Truck No. HR-55A-4876 along with driver Deepak in the month of January, 2021 in the bags of rice. All these vehicles except Truck No.HR-55L-4876, were taken in possession by police. It is also stated that after taking into possession of aforesaid Truck HR-55L-4876 by Finance Company in Banaras, Mohammad Deen and Mushatkeen had returned home, but, Truck driver Deepak had stayed there. 8. As per status report, for bringing poppy husk/straw, Mohammad Deen @ Kala had contacted Ahsaan resident of village Dharmawala in District Dehradun and had used Truck No.HR-55L-4876 for consideration of Rs.1,50,000/- and out of that, Rs.80,000/- were received by Ahsaan from Mohammad Deen and, therefore, Ahsaan has also been arrested under Section 29 of NDPS Act on 23.02.2021, who after remaining in police custody for three days, has been sent to judicial custody since 26.02.2021. 9. 9. As per prosecution case, co-accused Praveen Kumar had denied acquaintance with arrested persons including Ajmer with submission that he had not been keeping mobile phone since last one year. Whereas, from CDR of mobile, it was found that Ajmer Singh and Praveen Kumar in active contact with each other and on 10.02.2021 also they talked with each other for fourteen times, wherein six times Ajmer Singh called Praveen Kumar and they were in regular contact with each other through Whatsapp calls. 10. As per status report, Truck No.HR-55L-4876 was not registered in the name of Ahsaan, but in the name of Ashu Malhotra son of Sh.Dharam Pal Malhotra, resident of Ambala. The said Ashu Malhotra had handed over the said Truck to Paramjeet Singh son of Sh.Narender Singh, resident of Nahan, by executing General Power of Attorney (GPA) in favour of Paramjeet Singh. Paramjeet Singh vide agreement dated 28.12.2020 had sold this Truck to Ahsaan for a consideration of Rs.2,25,000/-. Out of which Rs.1,60,000/- had been paid and balance amount of Rs.65,000/- was to be paid within two months thereafter and as per agreement, Truck was with Ahsaan since 28.12.2020. On the basis of GPA and agreement, produced by its driver Deepak (co-accused) this Truck was found in possession and under control of Ahsaan and Deepak as a driver was employed by Ahsaan on the Truck and this Truck was provided by Ahsaan to Mohammad Deen for transportation of poppy straw from Jharkhand. However, this Truck was taken in possession by the Finance Company at Banaras and thereafter poppy straw was transported from Banaras to Selaqui in Truck No.HR-69A-9217. 11. As per status report, when possession of Truck No.HP-55L-4876 was taken by Finance Company, then Mohammad Deen @ Kala had contacted him and had asked him to provide his Truck to bring rice from Varanasi to Ludhiana on urgent basis as Mohammad Deen had expressed apprehension that delay may spoil the rice whereupon Amzad Khan had handed over his Truck to Deepak at Muradabad who brought the rice in his Truck from Banaras to Selaqui. Statement of Amzad has been recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 12. It has further been stated in the status report that from Selaqui to the spot where Truck was intercepted by the police, poppy straw was transported in Truck No.HP-11-4991 owned and possession by Ajmer Singh. Statement of Amzad has been recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 12. It has further been stated in the status report that from Selaqui to the spot where Truck was intercepted by the police, poppy straw was transported in Truck No.HP-11-4991 owned and possession by Ajmer Singh. This Truck was taken to Selaqui by driver Chaman Lal @ Tinku. When Chaman Lal was going to Selaqui, one Surender Singh had also gone with him in the Truck, but he did not return and during investigation, it has been found that the said Surender Singh was not knowing about purpose for which Chaman Lal was going to Selaqui and, therefore, he has been associated in the investigation as a witness and his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has also been recorded before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Paonta Sahib. It is further case of the police that at Selaqui poppy straw from Truck No.HR69-A9217 was shifted to Truck No.HP-11-4991 and brought to near bridge of Banjara Basti, Satiwala and some bags of poppy straw were shifted to Tractor No.HP-17D-9357 belonging to Budh Ram for hiding those bags in the forest adjacent to Yamuna River and during that process, Praveen Kumar had noticed light of some vehicle, therefore, some bags of poppy straw were left in the Truck. Whereas, bags loaded in the Tractor were taken to the forest and thrown in the pits already prepared for hiding contraband that and thereafter accused fled from the spot. As per police, accused Subhash had identified those places wherefrom poppy straw was recovered by the police after incepting the Truck. 13. It has also been contended on behalf of petitioners that there is no direct or indirect evidence to implicate the petitioners, who were having no link with Praveen Kumar and as nothing has been recovered from the petitioners, therefore, presumption of innocence is applicable, but not presumption of guilt like persons from whom contraband is recovered. It has further been stated that there is no bank statements or any other abnormal transaction establishing or indicating involvement of the petitioners in commission of offence. 14. Lastly, it has been stated that user of Truck or Tractor for commission of offence is not sufficient to implicate the petitioners. It has further been stated that petitioner Ajmer Singh has handed over Truck innocently to the wrong persons. 14. Lastly, it has been stated that user of Truck or Tractor for commission of offence is not sufficient to implicate the petitioners. It has further been stated that petitioner Ajmer Singh has handed over Truck innocently to the wrong persons. On behalf of petitioner Budh Ram, it has been contended that in the entire investigation and the evidence collected by the police, there is no direct or concrete evidence about involvement of petitioner Budh Ram in commission of offence except observation of Investigating Officer that it was appearing to him that Budh Ram was involved in transportation and hiding contraband by using his Tractor. 15. It has been submitted by learned counsel for Ahsaan that Ahsaan has no role in transportation of poppy straw in his Truck from Jharkhand to Banaras or Satiwala as he is neither owner of the Truck nor driver of the Truck and he was not having any knowledge about transportation of poppy straw in the Truck in question by Mohammad Deen. It has further been stated that even if, police story is considered to be true then also, there is nothing on record to depict that Ahsaan was knowing that alongwith rice bags other accused persons have planned to transport poppy straw and further that nothing has been recovered from Ahsaan. 16. Learned counsel for petitioner-Chaman Lal @ Tinku has submitted that Chaman Lal is simply a driver and acting under the instructions of the owner of the Truck to bring some bags from another Truck and he has no role in transportation of the recovered contraband and further that nothing has been recovered from Chaman Lal. 17. Undoubtedly, as pleaded by learned counsel for the petitioner, bail is rule and jail is exception. But, at the same time, this rule does not mean that in every case bail is to be granted in all eventualities. The Supreme Court, in its various pronouncements, as also referred by this Court in State of Sandeep v. State of Himachal Pradesh, reported in 2019(1) Shim.LC 263 , has culled out various factors and parameters to be taken into consideration at the time of deciding the bail applications, which also include denial of bail based on those factors and principles. The Supreme Court, in its various pronouncements, as also referred by this Court in State of Sandeep v. State of Himachal Pradesh, reported in 2019(1) Shim.LC 263 , has culled out various factors and parameters to be taken into consideration at the time of deciding the bail applications, which also include denial of bail based on those factors and principles. The general rule ‘bail but not jail’ cannot be used as a weapon to render the provisions, empowering the Court to reject the bail, redundant and/or as a guiding factor to enlarge an accused on bail, in every case. In cases under the special enactment where provision of reverse onus is there, parameters for deciding the bail application a little bit are different than other cases. 18. It is also canvassed that for the purpose of recovery of huge quantum of contraband, personal liberty of petitioners guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India cannot be infringed. 19. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that according to status report, police party had received reliable secret information about transportation of the contraband and it was the time between sunset and sunrise and, therefore, it was mandatory for the police party to comply with provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act, and according to the petitioners, police was not authorized to intercept the Truck between sunset and sunrise without recording grounds of belief to intercept without authorization and grounds of belief have not been written by the Investigating Officer in present case and, therefore, for violation of mandatory provisions, entire investigation vitiates entitling the petitioners for bail. To substantiate this plea, reliance has been placed on the pronouncement of Supreme Court in Roy V.D. vs. State of Kerala, (2000) 8 SCC 590 , wherein it has been held that where criminal proceedings are initiated on the basis of illicit material collected on search and arrest, which are per se illegal and vitiate trial itself, the proceedings would amount to abuse of process of the Court. Reliance has also been placed on pronouncement of Supreme Court in Sarija Banu alias Janarthani alias Janani and another vs. State through Inspector of Police, (2004) 12 SCC 266 , wherein it has been held that Section 42 of the NDPS Act is mandatory and compliance or non-compliance thereof is a relevant fact which should engage the attention of the Court while considering bail application. 20. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also referred pronouncements of the Supreme Court in Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2021 (4) SCC 1 ; Sanjeev Chandra Agarwal & Another vs. Union of India, Criminal Appeal No(s). 1273 of 2021; Sujit Tiwari vs. State of Gujarat, Criminal Appeal No.1897 of 2019 (@Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.3478 of 2019; Amit Singh Moni vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No.668 of 2020; and Tapan Das vs. Union of India, Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5617 of 2021. 21. The petitioners have also placed reliance upon pronouncements of judgments of the various High Courts in Shivraj Urs vs. Union of India, Criminal Petition No.6322 of 2020 (Karnataka High Court); Shashikant Prabhu vs. Rahul Saini, 2020 SCCC online Bom 11226; Yousuf vs. State of Kerala, 2021 SCC online Ker 851; Mohit Aggarwal vs. Narcotics Control Bureau, Manu/DE/0488/2021 (Delhi High Court); and Chaitan Mali vs. State of Odisha, 2021 SCC online Ori 564. It has further been submitted that in Kaleem vs. Union of India, 2003 Crl.J 2685 (Allahabad High Court), bail was granted to the petitioner in a case where recovery of 350 kilograms Ganja was involved. 22. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that petitioners have nothing to do with present case and they are being implicated on the basis of suspicion only and on the basis of alleged statements of co-accused, which cannot be taken into consideration against them in view of aforesaid pronouncements of the Supreme Court, particularly in Tofan Singh’s case (supra). Citing judgments referred supra grant of bail for the petitioners has been advocated. 23. Learned Deputy Advocate General has submitted that petitioners are members of a big racket involved in supplying the narcotic drugs in the State and involvement of Ajmer Singh is writ large as he has not only handed over the Truck, but had taken Truck to the spot and handed over the key to the co-accused persons. 23. Learned Deputy Advocate General has submitted that petitioners are members of a big racket involved in supplying the narcotic drugs in the State and involvement of Ajmer Singh is writ large as he has not only handed over the Truck, but had taken Truck to the spot and handed over the key to the co-accused persons. It has further been submitted that involvement of Ajmer Singh is substantiated from the facts that Truck was handed over to co-accused on 10.02.2021 and thereafter, it was taken into possession by the police and Ajmer Singh was associated in the investigation after 12.02.2021, but till then, Ajmer Singh did not inquire about his Truck and did not file any application for release of the Truck as he was knowing well that for what purpose he had handed over the Truck to co-accused. It has further been submitted by learned Deputy Advocate General that it is an un-explained behave on the part of Ajmer Singh that he has handed over the keys of Truck without driver to the persons, without asking for the nature of material to be loaded and unloaded in or of the Truck. It has further been submitted that call details also strengthen the prosecution case with respect to active involvement of Ajmer Singh in commission of offence. It has also been submitted that not only Truck of Ajmer but car was also used by co-accused facilitating transportation of recovered contraband. 24. Learned Deputy Advocate General by referring the material on record has submitted that so far as Ajmer Singh is concerned, his active role in commission of offence stands established for his conduct came into light during investigation and also for his inaction for getting Truck released from the police after its seizure. It has been submitted that had petitioner Ajmer Singh been innocent, then first reaction on his part would have been to take immediate steps to get his Truck released, but in present case he remained silent for about three days and opened his mouth only when he was subjected to interrogation by the police. It has further been contended that it is not a case where only on the basis of suspicion petitioner Ajmer Singh has been implicated, but there is ample evidence, including call detail records about involvement of petitioner Ajmer Singh in commission of offence. 25. It has further been contended that it is not a case where only on the basis of suspicion petitioner Ajmer Singh has been implicated, but there is ample evidence, including call detail records about involvement of petitioner Ajmer Singh in commission of offence. 25. Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that petitioner Ahsaan had agreed to transport the contraband for having heavy amount of consideration i.e. Rs.1,50,000/- and driver Deepak was engaged by him, who was acting under his control and was in his regular contact. Further that when Truck of Ahsaan was taken in possession by the Finance Company, then load of the Truck was shifted to another Truck and at that time also, Deepak remained with the material loaded in the Truck and at the time of shifting also he was actively involved and, therefore, there is more than sufficient evidence on record to connect petitioner Ahsaan with commission of offence. Therefore, recovery or no recovery of contraband from Ahsaan is an immaterial fact. 26. Learned Additional Advocate General has further submitted that petitioner Chaman Lal @ Tinku was also knowing about transportation of contraband and he has actively participated by taking Truck bearing No.HP-11-4991 to Selaqui and not only in his presence but with his help the poppy straw was shifted to the Truck of Ajmer Singh and Truck was brought to Satiwala and near bridge of Banjara Basti some bags of poppy straw were shifted to Tractor of Budh Ram and at that time, police party intercepted the Truck and Chaman fled from the spot. It has been contended that in case Chaman was innocent or not knowing about transportation of contraband, then there was no occasion or reason for him to flee from the spot. Therefore, there is sufficient evidence on record to connect Chaman Lal also with commission of offence as a member of gang involved in commission of offence under the NDPS Act. 27. Learned Deputy Advocate General has further submitted that involvement of Budh Ram, is also established on account of disclosure of his role by co-accused for transporting and hiding contraband by using his Tractor. 27. Learned Deputy Advocate General has further submitted that involvement of Budh Ram, is also established on account of disclosure of his role by co-accused for transporting and hiding contraband by using his Tractor. It has been contended that similarly for role of Ahsaan and Chaman Lal in entire episode, their involvement in commission of offence is also established and all of them are also active members of gang involved in procuring, transporting and hiding the recovered contraband and, therefore, prayer for rejection of their bail applications has been made. 28. Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that in present case there is complete compliance of Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act, as immediately after receiving information, same was reduced into writing by Assistant Sub Inspector Gian Singh and was sent to Sub Divisional Police Officer at 6.15 a.m. Referring information reduced into writing by Assistant Sub Inspector, learned Additional Advocate General has pointed out that in the said information, it has been clearly stated that in case of delay in intercepting/raiding the Truck, there is possibility of concealment of evidence or escape of offender from the spot. Therefore, it has been contended that the case law cited by and on behalf of the petitioners, on this count, is not relevant, with respect to compliance of provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act, in present case. 29. I have considered judgments referred on behalf of the petitioners, submission made by both sides and have also gone through the record. 30. Considering all facts and circumstances, including quantum of contraband recovered from the petitioners in commission of offence, period of detention, impact on the society but without commenting on merits of the rival contention of parties and taking note of all principles and factors relevant to be considered at the time of deciding bail application with reference to aforesaid facts and circumstances placed before me, and submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Additional/Deputy Advocate Generals, I am of the considered opinion that petitioners are not entitled for bail at this Stage. Hence, petitions are dismissed and disposed of. 31. Observations made in these petitions hereinbefore, shall not affect the merits of the case in any manner and are strictly confined for the disposal of the bail application. 32. Petitions are disposed of in aforesaid terms.