ORDER : Petitioner is an accused in case FIR No. 16/2021, dated 24.02.2021, under Sections 20 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "ND&PS Act"), registered at Police Station Swarghat, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh. 2. On 24.02.2021, police party had laid 'Nakka' near 'Thakur Bhojnalaya', Baner, District Bilaspur, HP. A car with registration No. HP-49- 2697 (i-20) approached from Bilaspur side, which was stopped for checking. The driver of the car got perplexed on noticing police party. Tek Ram was the driver of the car and another person named Bobby Sharma was sitting besides him on the front seat. Independent witnesses were associated. Car was checked and charas weighing 1 kg 790 grams was recovered. During interrogation, accused Tek Ram and Bobby Sharma disclosed that they were carrying the contraband on the asking of Vikas @ Vicky and Hitesh, who had engaged them to transport the same beyond the Borders of Himachal Pradesh, in lieu of Rs. 20,000/-. It was also disclosed that both these persons (Vikas @ Vicky and Hitesh) had travelled in advance in their vehicle No. DL-8CNA-7974 and were scheduled to meet them near Toll Plaza beyond place known as Garamoura. On this information, Vikas @ Vicky and Hitesh alongwith vehicle No.DL-8CNA-7974, were apprehended near Garamoura, Toll Barrier. All the said accused persons were formally arrested after completion of preliminary investigation. 3. The case of respondent-State further is that during investigation accused person apprehended by the police, disclosed the complicity of the petitioner in crime. As per respondent-State, the contraband recovered by the police was infact sold by the petitioner. 4. Petitioner has approached this Court for the grant of bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the above noted case, on the grounds that she is innocent and has nothing to do with the case. Petitioner is in custody since 15.06.2021. It is contended that there is no legal evidence against the petitioner to connect her with the alleged offence. Though, the case was registered on 16.03.2022, but the petitioner was implicated after about three months thereafter. The petitioner has been made scapegoat. 5. Petitioner is permanent resident of Village Malana, PO Jairi, Tehsil Bhuntar, District Kullu HP and there is no apprehension of her fleeing from the course of justice. Petitioner has minor children and there is no one to lookafter them. The petitioner has been made scapegoat. 5. Petitioner is permanent resident of Village Malana, PO Jairi, Tehsil Bhuntar, District Kullu HP and there is no apprehension of her fleeing from the course of justice. Petitioner has minor children and there is no one to lookafter them. No fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner in custody. Her husband is also of unsound mind. The entire family is dependent upon her for livelihood. Petitioner is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions as may be imposed against her. 6. On notice, the bail petition is opposed on the ground that the petitioner is involved in the case as disclosed by other co-accused. Petitioner had been intouch with co-accused Manoj through mobile. It is the petitioner who has sold the contraband to her co-accused. As per respondent, petitioner earlier also had been convicted in a case under ND&PS Act and has already undergone the sentence of 10 years. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State and have also gone through the contents of the status report as well as the record of the investigation. 8. The contraband recovered in the case is of commercial quantity, therefore, rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act are applicable. However, at this stage, this Court is not precluded from looking into the material placed before it in order to have prima facie assessment of the nature and gravity of allegations against the petitioner and the material collected by the investigating agency to substantiate the same. 9. Save and accept the allegation that petitioner had sold the contraband to the co-accused in the case, no tangible material to support such contention appears to be available on record. The disclosure by co-accused cannot be taken as a legal evidence at this stage against the petitioner. Similarly, having telephonic conversation with co-accused Manoj Kumar again will not help the case of the respondent as firstly the said Manoj Kumar has already been granted bail in this case by this Court vide order dated 16.03.2022 and secondly, the allegations regarding telephonic conversation so made are the subject matter of trial especially when the SIM allegedly used by petitioner is not in her name. Such material can not be used as evidence as is held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh Vs. Such material can not be used as evidence as is held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh Vs. State of Madras, 2021 (4) SCC 1 . Confessional statement of an accused, during the investigation under NDPS Act has been held to be inadmissible. In Bharat Chaudhary Vs. Union of India, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5703 of 2021, the three Judges Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in almost identical situation has held asunder :- “11. In the absence of any psychotropic substance found in the conscious possession of A-4, we are of the opinion that mere reliance on the statement made by A-1 to A-3 under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is too tenuous a ground to sustain the impugned order dated 15th July, 2021. This is all the more so when such a reliance runs contrary to the ruling of Tofan Singh (supra). The impugned order qua A-4 is, accordingly, quashed and set aside and the order dated 2nd November, 2020passed by the learned Special Judge, EC & NDPS Cases, is restored. As for Raja Chandrasekharan (A-1), since the charge sheet has already been filed and by now the said accused has remained for over a period of two years, it is deemed appropriate to release him on bail, subject to the satisfaction of the trial Court.” 10. Merely because the petitioner was earlier a convict in a case under ND&PS Act, cannot be a ground to deny her bail in the present case unless the respondent is able to connect the petitioner with the help of legal evidence. The Constitutional guarantee of personal liberty of an individual can not be curtailed on vague and indefinite allegations. 11. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is satisfied that the complicity of the petitioner in the alleged crime is not prima facie made out. 12. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, pre trial incarceration of the petitioner is not going to serve any fruitful purpose. Petitioner is permanent resident of Village Malana, PO Jairi, Tehsil Bhuntar, District Kullu, HP. The apprehension of the respondent that petitioner, if enlarged on bail, may influence the witnesses again does not appears to be reasonable as no material has been placed on record to substantiate such apprehension. 13. Petitioner is permanent resident of Village Malana, PO Jairi, Tehsil Bhuntar, District Kullu, HP. The apprehension of the respondent that petitioner, if enlarged on bail, may influence the witnesses again does not appears to be reasonable as no material has been placed on record to substantiate such apprehension. 13. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in case FIR No. 16/2021, dated 24.02.2021, under Sections 20 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Swarghat, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, on her furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2 lacs/- with one surety in the like amount, who necessarily will be of a person belonging to the State of Himachal Pradesh, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. This order is subject to following conditions :- (i) Petitioner shall regularly attend the trial of the case, before learned Trial Court and shall not cause any delay in its conclusion. (ii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner, whatsoever and shall not dissuade any person from speaking the truth in relation to the facts of the case in hand. (iii) Petitioner shall be liable for cancellation of bail in the instant case in the event of petitioner violating the conditions of this order. (iv) Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of learned trial Court till completion of trial. 14. Any expression of opinion herein-above shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and shall be deemed only for the purpose of disposal of this petition.