JUDGMENT 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to enlarge him on bail in connection with FIR No.32(6)2022 under Section 22(c)/60(3)/29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [for short, 'NDPS Act'] on the file of Moreh Police Station. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 17.6.2022 at about 9.00 p.m., one RG Gurung of 20 Assam Rifles (JC- 2002503 Nb/Sub) reported to the Officer-in-Charge of Moreh Police Station that on the same day at about 17.00 hours, while carrying out routine checking at PVCP Khudengthabi, a grey colour EECO van bearing registration No.MN01-AS-0772 driven by one Maibam Jateshor Singh was checked. On checking, he found 5 packages (50,000 tablets) of suspected WY tablets were found concealing inside detergent containers being transported in the van. On enquiry, it was revealed that the stores belong to the vehicle driver and his associates and the suspected tablets were being ferried from Moreh to Imphal. Based on the said report, FIR No.32(6)2022 under Section 22(c)/60(3)/29 of NDPS Act was registered by Moreh Police Station against the petitioner and Maibam Jateshor Singh and took up the case for investigation. 3. Mr. L. Sevananda, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has been falsely implicated in this case and in fact, the petitioner is running a small time business as a transporter, transporting goods and items by plying aEeco van from Imphal to Moreh and Moreh to Imphal on day-to-day basis on being hired by customers. He would submit that the alleged seizure of psychotropic substances was not from the direct possession of the petitioner and that the only incriminating allegation charged against the petitioner is he has contacted the co-accused Maiibam Jateshore for picking up a lady passenger with some belongings, including some grocery items as the said co-accused also running transport business by plying an EECO van on Imphal-Moreh and Moreh-Imphal route. 4. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner did not have any conscious knowledge of the contents in those boxes which were loaded in the vehicle of the co-accused Maibam Jateshore Singh and he was under the simplistic impression of the items loaded in the vehicle of the co-accused to be ordinary items and hence, there was neither any conscious possession, nor malicious intention to make the co-accused to transport any contraband/ psychotropic substances. 5. 5. The learned counsel then submitted that one Md. Makakmayum Rahish has hired the service of the petitioner to transport some ordinary/grocery items on his behalf from Moreh to Imphal. In fact, in the remand report dated 27.6.2022 submitted before the Court by the investigating officer has neither mentioned of any evidential material in the course of investigation to bind the petitioner for conspiracy and abetment to attract the commission of offences under the relevant provisions of NDPS Act, nor was the petitioner found to have been in direct possession of the seized substances and that the seized items were not found in the vehicle of the petitioner. 6. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner in good faith has informed Md. Makakmayum Rahish that his vehicle which was meant for carrying the seized items was filled with the belongings of passengers which itself shows the unconscious knowledge of the nature of articles loaded in the vehicle of the co-accused Maibam Jateshore Singh. The petitioner would not have driven his vehicle following the other vehicle driven by the co-accused, if in case he has the prior or conscious knowledge of the articles loaded and carried to be of psychotropic substances. 7. The learned counsel urged that no incriminating evidence could be reasonably established against the petitioner, except the fact that the he has been conducting the business of transporting ordinary goods and passengers by plying in the route of Imphal-Moreh and Moreh-Imphal to earn his livelihood. 8. The learned counsel next submitted that earlier the petitioner filed bail application before the learned Special Judge (ND&PS) Manipur and by the order dated 15.7.2022, the said petition was dismissed holding that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the offences alleged against him. According to the learned counsel such a finding of the learned Special Judge is not supported by any material evidence and that the learned Special Judge erred in observing so. 9. According to the learned counsel such a finding of the learned Special Judge is not supported by any material evidence and that the learned Special Judge erred in observing so. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 17.6.2022 by the personnel of Moreh Police Station by reason of which thorough interrogation must have been conducted by the investigating officer of the case to extract as much evidence as required for establishing the case and thereafter has been remanded to judicial custody by an order dated 27.6.2022 and that so far no incrimination evidence of slightest nature could be adduced to implicate the petitioner under Section 22(c) nor any evidence to induce him under Section 29 or Section 60(3) have surfaced and, as such, the further detention of the petitioner shall not serve in the interest of justice. Thus, a prayer is made to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 10. Per contra, Mr. H. Samarjit, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that during the course of investigation, the investigating officer examined the complainant and witnesses, who fully corroborated with each other and the investigating officer has also seized the materials. When the petitioner and co-accused were interrogated, they admitted to have committed the crime. He would submit that the Eeco van bearing registration No.MN01-AS-1683 which was driven by the petitioner was also seized in connection with the present FIR. 11. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that during police custody, the co-accused Maibam Jateshor Singh stated that he started money lending business with the street vendors at Bir Tikendrajit Road market and collecting money day-to-day and due to Covid-19, he quit from the above mentioned activities and remained home and that Covid-19, he took one Eeco van and started running his business in the Maruti Eeco van. On 17.6.2022 at around 8.00 a.m., when he went to Moreh to buy eggs for Miss. Luxmi of Dewlahland near Tiny Tor's School by is Maruti van along with three lady passengers and one male passenger from Moirangkhom Moreh parking. After he parked his vehicle, he went to one rice hotel to have lunch and then be came to his vehicle and waited for passengers. At that time on lady passenger namely Namdailing of KhumanLapak told him to bring some Mangoes from godown of David at Moreh gate before leaving Moreh. 12. After he parked his vehicle, he went to one rice hotel to have lunch and then be came to his vehicle and waited for passengers. At that time on lady passenger namely Namdailing of KhumanLapak told him to bring some Mangoes from godown of David at Moreh gate before leaving Moreh. 12. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor then submitted that at around 12.00 p.m. on 17.6.2022, the accused Maibam Jateshor Singh went to the godown of David to load mangoes. Later when the accused drove his vehicle near Moreh police station, the petitioner called the accused Maibam Jateshor through his mobile telling him that he can carry some grocery items in his Eeco van. At around 3.30 p.m, again the petitioner called the co-accused to come in front of Deepa Hotel for loading some galaman items. Accordingly, accused Maibam Jateshor Singh went to the said place along with lady passenger. There he found the petitioner, who gave him 4 numbers of plastic buckets containing detergent boxes which were packing in a black plastic polythene and he kept the said items in the middle seat of his vehicle. 13. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor then submitted that a team of 20 AR personnel while doing vehicle checking at Khudengthabi check post, they stopped the vehicle of Maibam Jateshor Singhand started checking Maruti Eeco van and during their checking they opened the detergent boxes and found WY tablets. While 20 AR personnel asked about the owner of the detergent boxes to him, the accused Maibam Jateshor Singh told to the AR personnel that the detergent boxes containing contraband drugs were handed over to him by one of his Eeco driver, namely Ngangom Somorendro Singh. At that time Ngangom Somorendro Singh also reached the check post and his vehicle was also checked and 20 AR personnel apprehended both of them and detained them there. 14. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor urged that the detergent buckets/bottles containing suspected to be WY tablets were given by the petitioner and that according to the petitioner, the detergent buckets containing suspected WY tablets were given by Md. Makakmayum Rahish @ Jamad of Lilong Yangbi Makha Leikai. Thus, there is conspiracy between the Maibam Jateshor, Ngangom Somorendro Singh (petitioner herein) and Md. Makakmayum Rahish @ Jamad to commit the offence and the respondent police are made since efforts to nab the accused Md. Makakmayum Rahish @ Jamad of Lilong Yangbi Makha Leikai. Thus, there is conspiracy between the Maibam Jateshor, Ngangom Somorendro Singh (petitioner herein) and Md. Makakmayum Rahish @ Jamad to commit the offence and the respondent police are made since efforts to nab the accused Md. Makakmayum Rahish by sending special team. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is a chance of tampering with the witnesses and evidence related with the instant case and therefore the learned Special Judge rightly dismissed the bail application of the petitioner. Thus, a prayer is made to dismiss this bail application. 15. This Court considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record. 16. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. According to the petitioner, he and another co-accused Maibam Jateshore Singh were arrested on 17.6.2022 by the personnel of 20-Assam Rifles and the contraband substances were recovered from the possession of Maibam Jateshore Singh, who was granted bail by the learned Special Judge on 8.7.2022 on the ground of having no conscious possession, though physically recovered from his possession of the said contraband substances. 17. Admittedly, the instant FIR has been registered against the petitioner and Maibam Jateshor Singh. The petitioner is the second accused. The offence alleged against them is unauthorized possession of contraband drugs. The very registration of FIR is based on the report of the Nb/Sub of 20 Assam Rifles, namely RB Gurung, who has stated that on 17.6.2022 at around 17.00 hours, while carrying out routine checking at PVCP Khudengthabi, a grey colour EECO van (No.MN01-AS-0772) being driven by one Maibam Jateshor Singh was checked. On a thorough checking, 5 packages of suspected WY tablets were found concealed inside detergent containers (rainbow) being transported in the vehicle. On enquiry, the packages belong to the vehicle driver and his associates and the suspected WY tablets were being ferried from Moreh to Imphal. Thus, the report of the complainant/informant clearly shows that accused Maibam Jateshor Singh has not specifically stated the name of the petitioner, however, the team arrested Maibam Jateshor Singh and the petitioner in this case. 18. On enquiry, the packages belong to the vehicle driver and his associates and the suspected WY tablets were being ferried from Moreh to Imphal. Thus, the report of the complainant/informant clearly shows that accused Maibam Jateshor Singh has not specifically stated the name of the petitioner, however, the team arrested Maibam Jateshor Singh and the petitioner in this case. 18. In the present case, the alleged seizure of psychotropic substances was not from the direct possession of the petitioner, but from the possession and vehicle of the co-accused Maibam Jateshor Singh and the prima facie material reveals that the petitioner only contacted Maibam Jateshor Singh to pick up a lady passenger with some belongings, including some grocery items as Maibam Jateshor Singh also running the transport business by plying Eeco van on Moreh- Imphal route. 19. The co-accused Maibam Jateshor Singh has filed bail application being Cril. Misc. (B) Case No.179 of 2022 before the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Manipur, Imphal and by the order dated 8.7.2022, the learned Special Judge granted bail to him. While granting bail, the learned Special Judge observed as under: '... The whole transaction leading to the loading of the goods in his vehicle rather supports the claim of the petitioner of absence of knowledge of the contents of the said package. In the absence of the knowledge of the contents of the packages, even though the said packages are in his vehicle, the accused cannot be assigned with conscious possession of the said contents of the packages. Not mere physical possession but consciousness of what is physically possessed is required to constitute legal possession of S.35 and 54 of the Act. Situated this, I am inclined to accept the submission of lack of knowledge of the petitioner of the contents of the packages when it was loaded in his vehicle till it was recovered in the checking resulting in the case. In the result, I am of the opinion as regard this accused person, the necessary conditions under S.37 ND&PS Act of reasonable ground to believe the accused is innocent of the offence charged, is thus, made out. Further, with nothing on records to show accused as having any criminal antecedents or of any past records of drugs dealing etc., I am also of the opinion he is not likely to commit similar offence if released on bail.' 20. Further, with nothing on records to show accused as having any criminal antecedents or of any past records of drugs dealing etc., I am also of the opinion he is not likely to commit similar offence if released on bail.' 20. On a perusal of the said order, while granting bail, the learned Special Judge has not recorded the submission, if any, of the learned Special Public Prosecutor and the order of learned Special Judge noted only the presence of Special Public Prosecutor. The infirmities of the learned Special Public Prosecutor not opposing the bail application of the accused Maibam Jateshor Singh is very much support the case of the petitioner herein, as in the remand report dated 8.7.2022, the ASI of Moreh Police Station stated that during the police custody period, accused Maibam Jateshor Singh revealed that the detergent buckets/bottles containing suspected to be WY tablets were given by the petitioner. Again the petitioner also revealed that the detergent buckets/ bottles containing suspected to be WY tablets were given by Md. Makakmayum Rahish @ Jamad of Lilong and there will be conspiracy between the two accused persons, as they were also making friends since 2/3 years. This has been recorded by the learned Special Judge, while dismissing the bail application of the petitioner being Cril. Misc. (B) Case No.187 of 2022 dated 15.7.2022. When the report of the ASI of Moreh Police Station is to the effect that Md. Makakmayum Rahish also involved in the alleged crime, no efforts have been made by the respondent police till date to arrest him. 21. However, when the petitioner filed Cril. Misc. (B) Case No.187 of 2022, the learned Special Judge, by the order dated 15.7.2022, while dismissing the bail application, observed as under: '6. ... So from the material on record, it appears that the lady passenger whom the present petitioner asked the co-accused (Jateshor) to carry was not any random passenger waiting for taxi. The police are waiting for the report of the experts from Forensic Science Laboratory, Pangei and had also requisitioned the SDRs and CDRs records through SP - Tengnoupal, but not reply is yet to be received. Efforts are also being made to nab the mentioned accused person namely Md. Makakmayum Rashish @ Jamad by sending special source, whom if arrested will further throw light in the case. 7. Efforts are also being made to nab the mentioned accused person namely Md. Makakmayum Rashish @ Jamad by sending special source, whom if arrested will further throw light in the case. 7. After hearing the submission of both sides and also perusing the materials on record, I am not satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused/petitioner is not guilty of the offence alleged against him, as such, I am therefore inclined to reject his application.' 22. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the evidence collected so far by the investigating officer of the instant case correlating to the statement made by the petitioner in comparison to the co-accused Maibam Jateshore who enlarged already on bail stands on the same footing as the petitioner herein did not possess any conscious knowledge of article to be loaded by the co-accused Maibam Jateshore in his vehicle and the said statement of facts are being exhibited in the remand application dated 27.6.2022 submitted by the investigating officer before the Court. He further submitted that the investigating officer in the bail objection report dated 8.7.2022 submitted before the learned Special Court in respect of the bail application of the co-accused Maibam Jateshore Singh contradicted his earlier report given in the remand application dated 27.6.2022, inasmuch as the question of unconscious possession was revealed in support of the petitioner, whereas in the bail objection report, he specifically with a person and subjective interest appears to implicate the petitioner by defending the other co-accused meaning thereby the investigation itself seems to be ingrained with favouritism and one sided. This Court finds some force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 23. On a perusal of the materials available on record, prima facie, Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act cannot be applied to the case of the petitioner corresponding to the instant FIR, inasmuch as the petitioner was not in possession of the seized substances, nor was his vehicle carrying or transporting the said contraband substances. Rather, as admitted by the prosecution, the contraband substances were found to be carried, transported and possession in the vehicle of co-accused Maibam Jateshore Singh bearing registration No.MN01-AS-0772. Rather, as admitted by the prosecution, the contraband substances were found to be carried, transported and possession in the vehicle of co-accused Maibam Jateshore Singh bearing registration No.MN01-AS-0772. In the remand report dated 8.7.2022, the ASI of Moreh Police Station stated that one Eeco van bearing registration No.MN01-AS-1683 which was driven by the petitioner was also seized in connection with the above referred case on production by the complainant. The report further shows that no contraband substances were seized from the possession of the petitioner. 24. Prima facie, Section 60(3) of the NDPS Act, cannot be applied to the case of the petitioner in relation to the FIR in question by the reason of fact that the seized substances have been recovered from the vehicle of the co-accused and as such, the petitioner cannot be implicated within the purview of Section 60(3) of the NDPS Act. 25. Coming to the offence alleged against the petitioner under Section 29 of the NDPS Act is concerned, prima facie, the said Section shall not have a binding force to implicate the petitioner on the ground of conspiracy and abetment, as there is a lack of positive evidence about doing unlawful act of such nature. The investigating officer, after taking ample period of time, has not been able to establish where meeting of minds to hatch conspiracy to transport the seized psychotropic substances with the co-accused in nexus with Md. Makakmayum Rahish, who had proposed to carry the said seized substances in the vehicle of the petitioner is made out. 26. At this juncture, by placing reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Mahaboob Alam, (2004) 4 SCC 105 , the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that though the Court has power to grant bail in spite of the language of Section 32- A, that the same should be done only and strictly subject to the conditions spelt out in Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 27. The mandatory two conditions incorporated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act qua the enlargement on bail unless reasonable ground exists for the petitioner not to be guilty of the offence and he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail are fulfilled because the seized contraband substances were not directly recovered from his possession. 27. The mandatory two conditions incorporated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act qua the enlargement on bail unless reasonable ground exists for the petitioner not to be guilty of the offence and he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail are fulfilled because the seized contraband substances were not directly recovered from his possession. Secondly, the seized contraband substances have not been transported through any conveyance owned by the petitioner. Thirdly, the petitioner has not at any point of time been arrested or implicated in such criminal offence of having involved in any NDPS Act cases prior to the instant FIR. 28. Prima facie, the prosecution has failed to produce any material against the petitioner to show that he cannot be enlarged on bail. On the other hand, as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so far no incrimination evidence of slightest nature could be adduced to implicate the petitioner into the alleged offence under Section 22(c), nor any evidence to induce him under Section 29 or Section 60(3) of the NDPS Act. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the further detention of the petitioner shall not serve in the interest of justice. 29. It is apposite to mention that in a catena of decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that even where a prima facie case is established, the approach of the Court in the matter of bail is not that the accused should be detained by way of punishment but whether the accused would be readily available for the trial or he is likely to abuse the discretion granted in his favour by tampering with evidence. 30. In the present case, in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent, it has been stated that if the accused person is released on bail, then there is a chance of tempering with the witnesses and evidence related with the present case. The respondent has not particularly stated that if the petitioner is released on bail, he will tamper with the evidence. As stated supra, the first accused from whom the contraband substances were seized was released on bail by the learned Special Judge. When the co-accused, who is the first accused (prime accused) was released on bail, the alleged tampering of evidence by the petitioner herein stated by the respondent is only for sake. 31. As stated supra, the first accused from whom the contraband substances were seized was released on bail by the learned Special Judge. When the co-accused, who is the first accused (prime accused) was released on bail, the alleged tampering of evidence by the petitioner herein stated by the respondent is only for sake. 31. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner cannot be penalized merely because he was arrayed as an accused and the circumstantial material without any proximate and relevant lead of involvement would not entitle the prosecution to detain the petitioner for long and also without any evidence, the detention of the petitioner is against the constitutional right and liberty. 32. It is to be mentioned that it is the Court which has the last say on whether there exists any reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is guilty of committing the offence. Furthermore, there is no blanket bar as such which is imposed on the Court on granting of bail in such case and that the Court can exercise discretion in releasing the accused as long as reasons are recorded which clearly disclose how the discretion has been exercised. 33. It is settled law that 'bail ought not be denied to teach lesson to a person whose offence is yet to be proved.' 34. In Prabhakar Tiwari v. State of U.P., (2020) SCC OnLine 75, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that despite the alleged offence being grave and serious, and there being several criminal cases pending against the accused, these factors by themselves cannot be the basis for the refusal of the prayer for bail. 35. In State of Kerala v. Raneef, (2011) 1 SCC 784 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: '15. In deciding bail applications an important factor which should be certainly be taken into consideration by the court is the delay in concluding the trial. Often this takes several years, and if the accused is denied bail but is ultimately acquitted, who will restore so many years of his life spent in custody? Is Article 21 of the Constitution, which is the most basic of all the fundamental rights in our Constitution, not violated in such a case? Of course this is not the only factor, but it is certainly one of the important factors in deciding whether to grant bail. Is Article 21 of the Constitution, which is the most basic of all the fundamental rights in our Constitution, not violated in such a case? Of course this is not the only factor, but it is certainly one of the important factors in deciding whether to grant bail. In the present case the respondent has already spent 66 days in custody (as stated in Para 2 of his counter-affidavit), and we see no reason why he should be denied bail. A doctor incarcerated for a long period may end up like Dr.Manettee in Charles Dicken's novel A Tale of Two Cities, who forgot his profession and even his name in the Bastille.' 36. In the case on hand, as stated supra, no material has been produced by the respondent to show that earlier the petitioner has involved this type of cases. Admittedly, the petitioner is in jail from 17.6.2022 i.e. almost more than four months and the co-accused has already been released on bail. 37. In the case on hand, as stated supra, the petitioner is in jail for more than four months i.e. he is in custody for more than 120 days and it is reported that the investigation has been completed even after lapse of four months from the date of registration of case. 38. In Vaman Narain Ghiya v. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 2 SCC 281 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus: '7. Personal liberty is fundamental and can be circumscribed only by some process sanctioned by law. Liberty of a citizen is undoubtedly important but this is to balance with the security of the community. A balance is required to be maintained between the personal liberty of the accused and the investigational right of the police. It must result in minimum interference with the personal liberty of the accused and the right of the police to investigate the case. It has to dovetail two conflicting demands, namely, on the one hand the requirements of the society for being shielded from the hazards of being exposed to the misadventures of a person alleged to have committed a crime; and on the other, the fundamental canon of criminal jurisprudence viz. the presumption of innocence of an accused till he is found guilty. Liberty exists in proportion to wholesome restraint, the more restraint on others to keep off from us, the more liberty we have. the presumption of innocence of an accused till he is found guilty. Liberty exists in proportion to wholesome restraint, the more restraint on others to keep off from us, the more liberty we have. (See A.K.Gopalan v. State of Madras)' 39. Time and again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the principle of personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and noted that no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. 40. In Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: '12. The determination of whether a case is fit for the grant of bail involves the balancing of numerous factors, among which the nature of the offence, the severity of the punishment and a prima facie view of the involvement of the accused are important. No straitjacket formula exists for courts to assess an application for the grant or rejection of bail. At the stage of assessing whether a case is fit for grant of bail, the court is not required to enter into a detailed analysis of the evidence on record to establish beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the crime by the accused. That is a matter of trial. However, the Court is required to examine whether there is a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence and on a balance of the considerations involved, the continued custody of the accused sub-serves the purpose of the criminal justice system. Where bail has been granted by a lower court, an appellate court must be slow and ought to be guided by the principles set out for the exercise of the power to set aside bail.' 41. It is well settled that while considering an application for bail, detailed discussion of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits is to be avoided. This requirement stems from the desirability that no party should have the impression that his case has been pre-judged. Existence of a prima facie case is only to be considered. Elaborate analysis or exhaustive exploration of the merits is not required. 42. This requirement stems from the desirability that no party should have the impression that his case has been pre-judged. Existence of a prima facie case is only to be considered. Elaborate analysis or exhaustive exploration of the merits is not required. 42. There is no quarrel over the proposition that where the offence is of serious nature, the question of grant of bail has to be decided keeping in view the nature and seriousness of the offence, character of the evidence and amongst others the larger interest of the public. 43. As stated supra, the allegations levelled against the petitioner are to be proved by way of oral and documentary evidence and, thus, at this stage, an elaborate analysis of the merits of the allegations cannot be gone into. Only on the ground of the slow progress shown by the respondent police to complete the investigation, this Court has noted the merits in order to consider the bail application. 44. In a catena of decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a procedure which keeps large number of people behind bars without trial, for long, cannot be regarded as 'reasonable, just, fair' so as to be in conformity with the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Detaining the under-trial prisoners in custody for an indefinite period is a gross violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 45. It is settled law that the grant of bail ought not to be denied only on the perceived apprehension by the Court that the accused, if restored to liberty, will tamper with the evidence. There must be some prima facie evidence on record or reasonable and justifiable grounds to believe that in case the benefit of bail is extended to an accused, he is going to misuse his liberty or he would create conditions which are not conducive to hold a fair trial. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments has confirmed that 'bail is the rule and jail is an exception'. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive, but is meant to secure presence of the accused during the trial. 46. When the under-trial prisoners are detained in jail custody to an indefinite period, Article 21 of the Constitution of India is violated. Every person, detained or arrested, is entitled for speedy investigation and trial. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive, but is meant to secure presence of the accused during the trial. 46. When the under-trial prisoners are detained in jail custody to an indefinite period, Article 21 of the Constitution of India is violated. Every person, detained or arrested, is entitled for speedy investigation and trial. Merely the fact that serious allegations are levelled against the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be denied bail. 47. The primary purposes of ball in a criminal case are to relieve the accused of imprisonment, to relieve the State of the burden of detaining him, pending the trial, and at the same time, to keep the accused constructively in the custody of the Court, whether before or after conviction, to assure that he will submit to the jurisdiction of the Court and be in attendance thereon whenever his presence is required. 48. In Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows: '21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the 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. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The Courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.' 49. As stated supra, this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. The Courts have also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 50. In State of Rajasthan v. Balchand alias Baliay, (1977) 4 SCC 308 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: '2. The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like, by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like, by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. We do not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative. 3. It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the petitioner to avoid the course of justice and must weigh with us when considering the question of jail. So also the heinousness of the crime. Even so, the record of the petitioner is this case is that, while he has been on bail throughout in the trial court and he was released after the judgment of the High Court, there is nothing to suggest that he has abused the trust placed in him by the court; his social circumstances also are not so unfavourable in the sense of his being a desperate character or unsocial element who is likely to betrary the confidence that the court may place in him to turn up to take justice at the hands of the court. He is stated to be a young man of 27 years with a family to maintain. The circumstances and the social milieu do not militate against the petitioner being granted bail at this stage. At the same time any possibility of the absconsion or evasion or other abuse can be taken care of by a direction that the petitioner will report himself before the police station at Baren once every fortnight.' 51. The principles relating to grant or refusal of bail have been stated in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, reported at (2004) 7 SCC 528 . In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar, supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the Court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted, particularly, where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted, particularly, where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the Court granting bail to consider among other circumstances and the following facts also before granting bail; they are: (a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence. (b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant. (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge. 52. In Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences, but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correctional home is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. 53. Thus, it is clear that grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the Judge considering the bail application, but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by the High Courts in the country. 54. To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be adopted by a Judge while dealing with the ball application. 54. To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be adopted by a Judge while dealing with the ball application. Even if the offence is a serious offence, requires a humane treatment by the Court, humane treatment to all including an accused is requirement of law. 55. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready to furnish sufficient bonds and he is also ready to co-operate with the investigating officer and also he will abide by any terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court while ordering bail. 56. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be made to languish behind bars for a longer period of time and that the veracity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner can be tested during trial. That apart, in view of the undertaking given by the petitioner that he will not attempt to influence any witness or to attempt to tamper any evidence that may be relevant in the present case and to face the complete trial and not flee from justice, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 57. Accordingly, Bail Application No.17 of 2022 is allowed and the petitioner Ngangom Somorendro Singh, son of Ngangom Modhumangol Singh, a resident of Takhel Awang Leikai P.O. & P.S. Lamlai, Imphal East District, Manipur is ordered to be enlarged on bail in connection with FIR Case No.32(6)2022 under Section 22(c)/60(3)/29 of NDPS Act on the file of the Moreh Police Station, subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) and deposit into Court a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as security which is returnable with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge (ND&PS) Manipur, Imphal, with the following conditions: (i) The petitioner Ngangom Somorendro Singh shall not leave the place of residence without permission of the learned Special Court and shall ordinarily reside at a place of residence and the complete address of such place shall be furnished to the learned Special Court at the time of release. (ii) The petitioner Ngangom Somorendro Singh shall report before the investigating officer daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. (ii) The petitioner Ngangom Somorendro Singh shall report before the investigating officer daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. (iii) If the petitioner Ngangom Somorendro Singh has a passport, he shall also surrender the same to the learned Special Court. (v) The petitioner Ngangom Somorendro Singh shall not contact, visit or threaten or offer any inducement to the prosecution witnesses. (vi) The petitioner Ngangom Somorendro Singh shall not tamper with evidence nor otherwise indulge in any act or omission that would prejudice the proceedings in the matter. (vii) The petitioner NgangomS omorendro Singh shall not do anything against the interest of the State, society or investigation of the case. (viii) The petitioner Ngangom Somorendro Singh shall not do anything which is an offence under the NDPS Act or any other law. (ix) The petitioner Ngangom Somorendro Singh shall always be available to the investigating officer, if required by him and shall co-operate with him as required. (x) It is clarified that if the petitioner Ngangom Somorendro Singh misuses the liberty or violate any of the conditions imposed upon him, the prosecution shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail. (viii) 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 the present bail petition.