ORDER : Bail petitioner namely Kallu Devi, who is behind bars since 29.9.2021, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 439 of Cr.PC, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 82, dated 10.8.2021, registered at Police Station Banjar, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter, ‘Act’). Respondent-State has filed the status report in terms of order dated 14.3.2022. ASI Shesh Raj, PS. Banjar, has also come present with records. Records perused and returned. 2. Close scrutiny of record/status report reveals that on 10.8.2021, vehicle bearing registration No. HP-01B-0830 being driven by the co-accused Akshay Kumar was stopped by the police party for checking, apprehending that the person sitting next to the driver of the car, may be possessing some contraband. Since occupants of the car got perplexed after having seen police, police deemed it necessary to conduct search of the vehicle as well as of the persons sitting in car and allegedly recovered 1.107 kg of charas from the bag kept under the legs of co-accused Ravinder Kumar in the presence of the independent witnesses. Since no plausible explanation came to be rendered qua possession of aforesaid quantity of contraband by the occupants of the car, police after having completed necessary codal formalities, registered FIR detailed herein above. One of the co-accused Ravinder Kumar during investigation revealed that he purchased the aforesaid quantity of contraband from the present bail petitioner for sum of Rs.50,000/-. On the basis of aforesaid disclosure made by the co-accused Ravinder Kumar, police after having collected call details report of the petitioner herein lodged case against her and since then, she is behind bars. Co-accused namely Akshay Kumar and Ravinder Kumar, from whose conscious possession commercial quantity of contraband came to be recovered, already stand enlarged on bail vide orders dated 25.10.2021 and 8.3.2022 passed in Cr.MP(M)s Nos. 1996 of 2021 and 75 of 2022, respectively. Since investigation in the case at hand is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from present bail petitioner, she has approached this court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for grant of regular bail. 3. Mr. 1996 of 2021 and 75 of 2022, respectively. Since investigation in the case at hand is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from present bail petitioner, she has approached this court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for grant of regular bail. 3. Mr. Arvind Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, while fairly admitting that nothing remains to be recovered from the present bail petitioner, states that keeping in view gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by the bail petitioner, she does not deserve leniency and as such, her prayer for bail deserves outright rejection. Mr. Sharma, further submits that calls details report adduced on record clearly reveals that petitioner herein was in constant touch with the persons namely Ravinder Kumar, from whose conscious possession, commercial quantity of contraband came to be recovered. He submits that since co-accused Ravinder Kumar specifically disclosed to the police that he had purchased the aforesaid quantity of contraband from the bail petitioner herein, it cannot be said that she has been falsely implicated. Lastly, Mr. Sharma, submits that taking note of the quantity of contraband came to be recovered from the conscious possession of the co-accused, there is reason to presume and believe that she is a drug paddler and in the event of her being enlarge on bail, she may not only flee from justice, but would again indulge in such like activities and as such, her prayer for grant of bail deserves outright rejection. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this court finds that as per police, commercial quantity of charas came to be recovered from the bag kept under the legs of the co-accused Ravinder Kumar and on opening of the same, in the presence of the independent witnesses, police recovered one saving bank account passbook of co-accused Akshay Kumar and Aadhar Card of Ravinder Kumar. Since in the bail petitions having been filed by the persons named herein above, this Court finds aforesaid version of the police to be highly doubtful, it enlarged both the accused on bail during the pendency of the trial. Petitioner herein came to be named in the case on the basis of disclosure made by the accused Ravinder that he had purchased the aforesaid quantity of contraband from the present bail petitioner for total consideration of Rs. 50,000/-. Petitioner herein came to be named in the case on the basis of disclosure made by the accused Ravinder that he had purchased the aforesaid quantity of contraband from the present bail petitioner for total consideration of Rs. 50,000/-. Since this Court while granting bail to co-accused Ravinder Kumar and Akshay Kumar has already found recovery of the contraband to be highly doubtful, it would be too premature at this stage to conclude complicity, if any, of the bail petitioner in the case at hand that too on the basis of statement made by co-accused . Though in case at hand, case of the police is that as per call details report, bail petitioner and co-accused Ravinder were in constant touch, but it is not in dispute that till date, police has not been able to recover telephone/mobile phone allegedly used by the bail petitioner for making calls to the co-accused Ravinder Kumar. Needless to say, disclosure statement, if any, made by the co-accused under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 67 of the NDPS Act, cannot be made basis to conclude guilt, if any, of the person named by the co-accused while making statements under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act and Section 67 of the NDPS Act. 5. Reliance is placed 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 Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances will remain inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. Relevant paras of the afore judgment read as under: “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 6 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.” 6. 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 Section 67 of the NDPS Act was not found to be in accordance with law and Hon'ble Apex Court specifically ordered that 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. 7. which was passed by High Court of Karnataka. 7. No doubt, in the case at hand, commercial quantity of contraband came to be recovered, as such, rigours of Section 37 of Act are attracted, but bare perusal of Section 37, nowhere suggests that there is complete bar/prohibition to grant bail in cases involving commercial quantity of contraband, rather, in such like cases, court after affording due opportunity of hearing to the Public Prosecutor, can proceed to grant bail in cases involving commercial quantity, if it is satisfied that the accused has been falsely implicated and there is no likelihood of his indulging in such activities again during trial. In the case at hand, as has been taken note herein above, this court has reason to presume and believe that recovery is doubtful and as such, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner deserves to be considered, especially when two co-accused, from whose conscious possession, contraband came to be recovered, already stand enlarged on bail. Moreover, perusal of status report clearly reveals that no case in past stands registered against the present bail petitioner. 8. 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, 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 10. 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. 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. 11. 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 cannot 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. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. 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. 14. 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. 15. 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.2.00 Lac with one local surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, besides the following conditions: a. She shall make herself 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. She shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever; c. She shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and d. She shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. 16. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses her liberty or violates any of the conditions imposed upon her, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail. 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 bail petition stands accordingly disposed of. Copy dasti.