ORDER : Bail petitioner-Neel Chand, who is behind bars since 4.12.2020, has approached this court in the instant proceedings filed under S.439 CrPC, for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 23, dated 21.2.2020, registered at Police Station Banjar, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh under Ss. 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 2. Pursuant to orders dated 2.3.2022 and 14.3.2022, respondent State has filed status report. ASI Shesh Raj has come present with record. Record perused and returned. 3. Close security of record/status report, reveals that on 21.2.2020 police officials present at Naka laid near Fagu bridge stopped one vehicle (Etios) bearing registration No. PB-48D-8213 for checking. Since the occupants of the car got perplexed on seeing the police, police after having associated independent witnesses, effected personal search of the occupants of the car as well as the car itself and allegedly recovered 4.600 kg Charas from the bag kept in car. Since no plausible explanation came to be rendered on record by the occupants of car qua possession of aforesaid quantity of Charas, police after completion of codal formalities, lodged FIR against the occupants of the car namely Manish Sharma, Gulshan Kumar and Sahil Batta and since then they all are behind the bars. 4. During investigation, above named persons, revealed that they purchased aforesaid quantity of contraband from a person namely Devender Mamu, after having paid Rs. 2.50 Lakh. Above named persons, disclosed to the police that though they had been talking to Devender Mamu on mobile No.62391 63357, but they were delivered the consignment by a person namely Dev Raj, who during investigation revealed that on 20/21.2.2020, he had given bag containing Charas to three boys in lieu of Rs. 3.50 Lakh. Since above named Dev Raj disclosed to the police that the bag containing Charas was delivered to him by the present bail petitioner-Neel Chand at the askance of Devender Mamu, he (present bail petitioner) also came to be named in the case and since 4.12.2020, he is behind bars. Since investigation is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from bail petitioner, he has approached this court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail. 5. Mr. Since investigation is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from bail petitioner, he has approached this court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail. 5. Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General, while fairly acknowledging the 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 gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by the bail petitioner, he does not deserve leniency and his prayer for bail deserves outright rejection. While making this court peruse status report/record, Mr. Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General submits that there is overwhelming evidence on record suggestive of the fact that the bail petitioner herein took active part in transportation of the commercial quantity of contraband and as such, it cannot be claimed that he has been falsely implicated. Lastly, Mr. Bhatnagar, states that the quantity of contraband, which is commercial in nature, recovered in the case at hand, itself suggests that the bail petitioner is a drug peddler and in the event of his being enlarged on bail, he may not only flee from justice but may indulge in such activities again, as such, prayer made on behalf of the bail petitioner, for grant of regular bail may be rejected outrightly. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this court finds that on the date of alleged incident, commercial quantity of contraband came to be recovered from the bag kept in the car bearing registration No. PB-48D-8213, being driven by Gulshan Kumar. It is not in dispute that at the time of recovery of contraband, bail petitioner was not found in car, rather, besides driver, two persons, Sahil and Manish were found sitting in car, who disclosed to the police that they purchased the commercial quantity of contraband from one Devender Mamu for Rs. 2.50 Lakh. Since the occupants of the car specifically stated that though they had been talking to Devender Mamu for purchase of contraband but same was delivered to them by Dev Raj, police lodged case against Dev Raj. 2.50 Lakh. Since the occupants of the car specifically stated that though they had been talking to Devender Mamu for purchase of contraband but same was delivered to them by Dev Raj, police lodged case against Dev Raj. It is only after disclosure made by Dev Raj to the extent that Charas for further delivery to occupants of car was given to him by the present bail petitioner, that he (present bail petitioner) came to be roped into the case. 7. Mr. Ajay Kochhar, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that since the person(s), from whose conscious possession commercial quantity of contraband came to be recovered never named the bail petitioner, there was no occasion for the police to register case against him (bail petitioner). He further submits that once the occupants categorically stated that the consignment was delivered by Dev Raj at the askance of Devender Mamu, disclosure, if any, made by Dev Raj to the extent that he was delivered consignment by the present bail petitioner, is of no consequence. Mr. Kochhar further submits that otherwise also, disclosure if any made by a co-accused is of no relevance in view of S.27 of the Indian Evidence Act and S.67 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act. 8. In support of aforesaid submission, Mr. Kochhar placed reliance upon order dated 10.1.2022 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in case State by (NCB) Bengaluru v. Pallullabid Ahmad Arimutta, Special Leave to Appeal(Crl) No. 242 of 2022, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court having taken note of judgment in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1 , observed that a confessional statement recorded under S. 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances will remain inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. 9. Before ascertaining the correctness and genuineness of submission made on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner it would be apt to take note of the following paras of the aforesaid judgment, passed by Hon'ble Apex Court: “9. 9. Before ascertaining the correctness and genuineness of submission made on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner it would be apt to take note of the following paras of the aforesaid judgment, passed by Hon'ble Apex Court: “9. Having gone through the records alongwith the tabulated statement of the respondents submitted on behalf of the petitioner-NCB and on carefully perusing the impugned orders passed in each case, it emerges that except for the voluntary statements of A-1 and A-2 in the first case and that of the respondents themselves recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, it appears, prima facie, that no substantial material was available with the prosecution at the time of arrest to connect the respondents with the allegations levelled against them of indulging in drug trafficking. It has not been denied by the prosecution that except for the respondent in SLP (Crl.) No. 1569/2021, none of the other respondents were found to be in possession of commercial quantities of psychotropic substances, as contemplated under the NDPS Act. 10. It has been held in clear terms in Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu. that a confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act will remain inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. In the teeth of the aforesaid decision, the arrests made by the petitioner-NCB, on the basis of the confession/voluntary statements of the respondents or the co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, cannot form the basis for overturning the impugned orders releasing them on bail. The CDR details of some of the accused or the allegations of tampering of evidence on the part of one of the respondents is an aspect that will be examined at the stage of trial. For the aforesaid reason, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the orders dated 16th September, 2019, 14th January, 2020, 16th January, 2020, 19th December, 2019 and 20th January, 2020 passed in SLP (Crl.) No@ Diary No. 22702/2020, SLP (Crl.) No. 1454/2021, SLP (Crl.) No. 1465/2021, SLP (Crl.) No. 1773- 74/2021 and SLP (Crl.) No. 2080/2021 respectively. The impugned orders are, accordingly, upheld and the Special Leave Petitions filed by the petitioner-NCB seeking cancellation of bail granted to the respective respondents, are dismissed as meritless.” 10. The impugned orders are, accordingly, upheld and the Special Leave Petitions filed by the petitioner-NCB seeking cancellation of bail granted to the respective respondents, are dismissed as meritless.” 10. Bare reading of aforesaid judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court clearly reveals that the arrest made by NCB in that case on the basis of confession /voluntary statement to co accused under S.67 of the NDPS Act was not found to be in accordance with law and Hon'ble Apex Court specifically ordered that statement under statements of the respondents or the co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, cannot form the basis for overturning the impugned orders releasing them on bail. which was passed by High Court of Karnataka. 11. Similarly, Hon'ble Apex Court categorically ruled that the CDR details of some of the accused or the allegations of tampering of evidence on the part of one of the respondents is an aspect that will be examined at the stage of trial. 12. Since in the case at hand, commercial quantity of contraband never came to be recovered from the conscious possession of the bail petitioner and he came to be named in the case, only on the basis of the statement of co-accused, who had actually delivered consignment to the persons, from whose conscious possession commercial quantity of contraband came to be recovered, prayer for grant of bail, made on behalf of bail petitioner deserves to be considered. 13. It is to be proved by the prosecution by leading cogent and convincing evidence that Dev Raj delivered consignment of commercial quantity of contraband to occupants of the car after collecting it from the present bail petitioner-Neel Chand, especially when occupants of the car categorically disclosed to the police that though they contacted Devender Mamu for the consignment but the same was delivered to them by Dev Raj. The question, whether present bail petitioner Neel Chand had any prior contact with Devender Mamu or he was deputed by Devender Mamu to deliver the contraband to Dev Raj for further delivery to the occupants of the car, needs determination in the totality of evidence led on record by Investigating Agency. 14. The question, whether present bail petitioner Neel Chand had any prior contact with Devender Mamu or he was deputed by Devender Mamu to deliver the contraband to Dev Raj for further delivery to the occupants of the car, needs determination in the totality of evidence led on record by Investigating Agency. 14. Though the case at hand, is to be decided by learned court below in the totality of evidence led on record by Investigating Agency, but having taken note of the aforesaid glaring aspects of the matter, this court sees no reason to let the present bail petitioner incarcerate in jail for an indefinite period during trial, especially when guilt of the present bail petitioner is yet to be established. 15. No doubt rigours of S. 37 of Act are attracted in the present case, but bare reading thereof nowhere suggests that there is any bar/restriction on the court to grant bail in cases involving commercial quantity of contraband, rather S. 37 of the Act provides that after affording opportunity of hearing to the public prosecutor, court can grant bail, if it is convinced that the accused has been falsely implicated in the case and there is no likelihood of said person indulging in such activities again. 16. In the case at hand, as has been taken note herein above, there appears to be no direct role, if any, played by the bail petitioner in delivery of consignment to the occupants of the car. Persons, from whose conscious possession commercial quantity of contraband came to be recovered, never named present bail petitioner rather stated that the contraband was delivered to them by Dev Raj as such, this court deems it fit to consider prayer of present bail petitioner for grant of bail pending trial. 17. Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in a catena of cases have repeatedly held that one is deemed to be innocent, till the time, he/she is proved guilty in accordance with law. In the case at hand, complicity, if any, of the bail petitioners is yet to be established on record by the investigating agency, as such, this Court sees no reason to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in jail for an indefinite period during trial, especially when nothing remains to be recovered from him. In the case at hand, complicity, if any, of the bail petitioners is yet to be established on record by the investigating agency, as such, this Court sees no reason to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in jail for an indefinite period during trial, especially when nothing remains to be recovered from him. Apprehension expressed by learned Additional Advocate General, that in the event of being enlarged on bail, bail petitioner may flee from justice or indulge in such offences again, can be best met by putting the bail petitioner to stringent conditions. 18. Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 227/2018, Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr decided on 6.2.2018 has held that freedom of an individual can not be curtailed for indefinite period, especially when his/her guilt is yet to be proved. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. 19. Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases 49 has held that gravity alone cannot be a decisive ground to deny bail, rather competing factors are required to be balanced by the court while exercising its discretion. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that 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. 20. In Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta versus CBI, (2017) 5 SCC 218 , Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the 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 also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Apart from above, 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. 21. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Apart from above, 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. 21. The Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashis Chatterjee and another (2010) 14 SCC 496 , has laid down various principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail viz. prima facie case, nature and gravity of accusation, punishment involved, apprehension of repetition of offence and witnesses being influenced. 22. In view of above, bail petitioner has carved out a case for himself, as such, present petition is allowed. Bail petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.5.00 Lakh with one local surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, besides the 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. 23. 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. 24. 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 petition alone. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. Copy dasti.