ORDER : Petitioner seeks regular bail by means of instant petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR No. 25 of 2020, dated 17.2.2020, registered under Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station Padhar, District Mandi, H.P. Besides the petitioner there are two other accused in the said FIR namely Deepak Kumar and Ev Raj @ ‘Guru’. 2. The case of the prosecution is that:- 2(i) On 17.2.2020 at about 12.15 p.m., a police party on a routine patrol duty stopped a bus, which came from Manali and was going towards Kangra. The passengers occupying seat Nos. 18 and 19 appeared perplexed. This raised the suspicion of the police personnel. The occupant of seat No. 19 gave his identity as Deepak Kumar, whereas, the person sitting on seat No. 18 disclosed his name as Rakesh Kumar (petitioner herein). Deepak Kumar identified himself to be the owner of a bag lying on the overhead rack in the bus. The police personnel thought it prudent to carry out search of the bag. The search was carried out in accordance with law. From the bag belonging to Deepak Kumar, 1 kg & 998 grams of cannabis was recovered which led to registration of the FIR in question. Deepak Kumar and petitioner were arrested on the same day i.e. 17.2.2020. 2(ii) During investigation, Deepak Kumar statedly disclosed about procuring the contraband in question on 17.2.2020 in Mandi from a person known to him as ‘Guru’. He also reportedly disclosed having purchased the contraband against cash payment of Rs.1,10,000/- made to said ‘Guru’ and that after purchasing cannabis from ‘Guru’ he (Deepak Kumar) came to the bus stand and met his companion Rakesh Kumar (petitioner). After discussion, both of them boarded a bus of the New Prem Bus Service and started from Mandi. The contraband in question, kept in Deepak Kumar’s bag was eventually recovered by the police on 17.2.2020. 2(iii) According to the prosecution, Deepak Kumar further disclosed that for procuring the cannabis from co-accused Ev Raj, he remained in constant touch with Ev Raj on his mobile number. The Investigating Agency is stated to have obtained billing address for obtaining the CDR of the mobile number disclosed by Deepak Kumar. 2(iii) According to the prosecution, Deepak Kumar further disclosed that for procuring the cannabis from co-accused Ev Raj, he remained in constant touch with Ev Raj on his mobile number. The Investigating Agency is stated to have obtained billing address for obtaining the CDR of the mobile number disclosed by Deepak Kumar. The photograph affixed on CAF, the CDR of one of the mobile number was stated to be belonging to Ev Raj @ Evu @ Guru. Ev Raj was apprehended on 21.7.2020. Investigations were carried out from him as well. 2(iv) Co-accused Ev Raj statedly disclosed that he used to prepare cannabis for selling to various customers. He had met Rakesh Kumar (petitioner) during previous year’s Dussehra festival. Petitioner used to fix tents in Dussehra and Shivratri Festivals at Kullu and Mandi, respectively. Petitioner had introduced Ev Raj to Deepak Kumar. After getting acquainted with Deepak Kumar, Ev Raj had sold 800 grams of cannabis to Deepak Kumar last year (2019). On 5.2.2020 Deepak Kumar had called him (Ev Raj) and demanded two kilograms of cannabis. Both of them (Ev Raj & Deepak Kumar) were in constant touch with each other on phone. On 16.2.2020 Ev Raj asked Deepak Kumar to meet him at Kullu bus stand alongwith the requisite money. Deepak Kumar met Ev Raj on 16.2.2020 at Kullu bus stand and handed him the demanded amount. On receipt thereof, Ev Raj assured him that two kilograms of cannabis will reach him (Deepak Kumar) near Mandi bus stand. As a result of this understanding the cannabis in question was finally handed over to Deepak Kumar at the taxi stand Mandi. Deepak Kumar and petitioner (Rakesh Kumar) were arrested on 17.2.2020 and the 3rd co-accused Ev Raj was arrested on 21.7.2020. 2(v) A regular bail petition filed by the present petitioner was dismissed by the learned Special Judge (III), Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. on 29.7.2021. 3. Contentions:- 3(i) Praying for release of the petitioner on bail, learned counsel has argued that : (i) The contraband in question was not recovered from the conscious possession of the bail petitioner. Rather it was recovered from the possession of accused Deepak Kumar. Petitioner had no role to play in the alleged recovery and possession of the contraband. He further submitted that there is no evidence regarding petitioner’s involvement with the alleged recovery of the contraband. Rather it was recovered from the possession of accused Deepak Kumar. Petitioner had no role to play in the alleged recovery and possession of the contraband. He further submitted that there is no evidence regarding petitioner’s involvement with the alleged recovery of the contraband. (ii) The case of the investigating agency is that co-accused Deepak Kumar and the petitioner (Rakesh Kumar) were travelling together in the bus. Hence, petitioner is also to be presumed to be in possession of the contraband recovered from Deepak Kumar’s bag, however, the bus tickets appended with the charge-sheet do not support the prosecution case. The petitioner and co-accused Deepak Kumar were not travelling together. (iii) The search-cum-seizure memo prepared by the investigating agency post alleged recovery of the contraband, shows that it was only got signed from co-accused Deepak Kumar. Signatures of the bail petitioner are not there on search-cum-seizure memo. (iv) Against column No. 2 in form NCB-I, name of only one accused i.e. Deepak Kumar finds mention as an offender. Petitioner’s name is nowhere reflected in the NCB form. (v) During the course of search and seizure operation, the investigating agency had clicked many photographs which have been appended alongwith the charge-sheet. In all these photographs, only co-accused Deepak Kumar is visible. On the basis of above submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that there are reasonable grounds to believe, at this stage, that the bail petitioner is not guilty of the offence alleged against him. It was further submitted that petitioner will abide by all the conditions, as may be put to him at the time of grant of bail and further that he will not influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner in case of his enlargement on bail. 3(ii) Learned Additional Advocate General, while opposing the bail petition, pointed out that commercial quantity of cannabis was recovered in the FIR in question. Petitioner's involvement in the commission of the alleged offence cannot be ruled out at this stage. He is not entitled to be released on bail keeping in view the peculiar facts of the case. It was further argued that petitioner may intimidate or influence the witnesses acquainted with the facts of the case in case he is enlarged on bail. Petitioner's involvement in the commission of the alleged offence cannot be ruled out at this stage. He is not entitled to be released on bail keeping in view the peculiar facts of the case. It was further argued that petitioner may intimidate or influence the witnesses acquainted with the facts of the case in case he is enlarged on bail. Therefore, considering the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. 4. Observations:- 4(i) As per the status report, the cannabis weighing about 1 kg & 998 grams was recovered from the possession of co-accused Deepak Kumar and petitioner Rakesh Kumar. Considering the commercial quantity of cannabis involved in the case, rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted. Section 37 reads as under: “37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)- (a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable; (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for offences under section 19 of section 24 or section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of subsection (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force, on granting of bail.” In order to make out a case for release on bail, petitioner has to satisfy the following twin conditions imposed in the aforesaid section:- (i) Court should be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of such offences; and (ii) Petitioner is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. In this regard, Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Kerala etc. vs. Rajesh etc. AIR 2020 SC 721 , held as under vide paras 19 to 20:- “19. In this regard, Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Kerala etc. vs. Rajesh etc. AIR 2020 SC 721 , held as under vide paras 19 to 20:- “19. This Court has laid down broad parameters to be followed while considering the application for bail moved by the accused involved in offences under NDPS Act. In Union of India Vs. Ram Samujh and Ors. 1999 (9) SCC 429 , it has been elaborated as under: “7. It is to be borne in mind that the aforesaid legislative mandate is required to be adhered to and followed. It should be borne in mind that in a murder case, the accused commits murder of one or two persons, while those persons who are dealing in narcotic drugs are instrumental in causing death or in inflicting deathblow to a number of innocent young victims, who are vulnerable; it causes deleterious effects and a deadly impact on the society; they are a hazard to the society; even if they are released temporarily, in all probability, they would continue their nefarious activities of trafficking and/or dealing in intoxicants clandestinely. Reason may be large stake and illegal profit involved. This Court, dealing with the contention with regard to punishment under the NDPS Act, has succinctly observed about the adverse effect of such activities in Durand Didier v. Chief Secy., Union Territory of Goa [ (1990) 1 SCC 95 )] as under: 24. With deep concern, we may point out that the organised activities of the underworld and the clandestine smuggling of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances into this country and illegal trafficking in such drugs and substances have led to drug addiction among a sizeable section of the public, particularly the adolescents and students of both sexes and the menace has assumed serious and alarming proportions in the recent years. Therefore, in order to effectively control and eradicate this proliferating and booming devastating menace, causing deleterious effects and deadly impact on the society as a whole, Parliament in its wisdom, has made effective provisions by introducing this Act 81 of 1985 specifying mandatory minimum imprisonment and fine. 8. Therefore, in order to effectively control and eradicate this proliferating and booming devastating menace, causing deleterious effects and deadly impact on the society as a whole, Parliament in its wisdom, has made effective provisions by introducing this Act 81 of 1985 specifying mandatory minimum imprisonment and fine. 8. To check the menace of dangerous drugs flooding the market, Parliament has provided that the person accused of offences under the NDPS Act should not be released on bail during trial unless the mandatory conditions provided in Section 37, namely, (i) there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence; and (ii) that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail are satisfied. The High Court has not given any justifiable reason for not abiding by the aforesaid mandate while ordering the release of the respondent accused on bail. Instead of attempting to take a holistic view of the harmful socioeconomic consequences and health hazards which would accompany trafficking illegally in dangerous drugs, the court should implement the law in the spirit with which Parliament, after due deliberation, has amended.” 20. The scheme of Section 37 reveals that the exercise of power to grant bail is not only subject to the limitations contained under Section 439 of the CrPC, but is also subject to the limitation placed by Section 37 which commences with non obstante clause. The operative part of the said section is in the negative form prescribing the enlargement of bail to any person accused of commission of an offence under the Act, unless twin conditions are satisfied. The first condition is that the prosecution must be given an opportunity to oppose the application; and the second, is that the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence. If either of these two conditions is not satisfied, the ban for granting bail operates.” In para 21 of the aforesaid judgment, it was held that the expression “reasonable grounds” appearing in Section 37 of the NDPS Act means something more than prima facie grounds. It contemplates substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. It contemplates substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. The reasonable belief contemplated in the provision requires existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. With respect to “reasonable ground to believe that the person is not guilty of offence”, following was observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India through Narcotics Control Bureau, Lucknow vs. MD. Nawaz Khan, (2021) 10 SCC 100 :- “22. The standard prescribed for the grant of bail is ‘reasonable ground to believe’ that the person is not guilty of the offence. Interpreting the standard of ‘reasonable grounds to believe’, a two-judge Bench of this Court in Shiv Shanker Kesari (supra), held that: “7. The expression used in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) is “reasonable grounds”. The expression means something more than prima facie grounds. It connotes substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence charged and this reasonable belief contemplated in turn points to existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify recording of satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the offence charged. 8. The word “reasonable” has in law the prima facie meaning of reasonable in regard to those circumstances of which the actor, called on to act reasonably, knows or ought to know. It is difficult to give an exact definition of the word “reasonable”. “7. ... In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, 4th Edn., p. 2258 states that it would be unreasonable to expect an exact definition of the word ‘reasonable’. Reason varies in its conclusions according to the idiosyncrasy of the individual, and the times and circumstances in which he thinks. The reasoning which built up the old scholastic logic sounds now like the jingling of a child's toy.” (See Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Jagan Nath Ashok Kumar [ (1987) 4 SCC 497 ] (SCC p. 504, para 7) and Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. Unique Erectors (Gujarat) (P) Ltd. [ (1989) 1 SCC 532 ] xxx xxx xxx 10. The word “reasonable” signifies “in accordance with reason”. In the ultimate analysis it is a question of fact, whether a particular act is reasonable or not depends on the circumstances in a given situation. (See Municipal Corpn. The word “reasonable” signifies “in accordance with reason”. In the ultimate analysis it is a question of fact, whether a particular act is reasonable or not depends on the circumstances in a given situation. (See Municipal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai v. Kamla Mills Ltd. [ (2003) 6 SCC 315 ] 11. The court while considering the application for bail with reference to Section 37 of the Act is not called upon to record a finding of not guilty. It is for the limited purpose essentially confined to the question of releasing the accused on bail that the court is called upon to see if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and records its satisfaction about the existence of such grounds. But the court has not to consider the matter as if it is pronouncing a judgment of acquittal and recording a finding of not guilty.” emphasis supplied) 4(ii) After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the status report as well as the record produced by the respondent-State, I am of the considered view that for the following factors, the petitioner has made out a case for his enlargement on bail at this stage: (a) It is the case of the prosecution that recovery of contraband in question was effected from the bag belonging to co-accused Deepak Kumar. Co-accused Deepak Kumar had statedly identified himself to be owner of the bag in question. As per prosecution, petitioner was only occupying the seat adjoining to the one occupied by Deepak Kumar and further both of them were travelling in a public bus. (b) It is the case of prosecution that it was co-accused Ev Raj who had supplied the recovered cannabis to co-accused Deepak Kumar. Ev Raj had statedly disclosed during investigation that petitioner had introduced him to Deepak Kumar during 2019’s Dussehra festival. (c) On perusal of the status report and the record, prima facie, it appears that perhaps co-accused Deepak Kumar and petitioner Rakesh Kumar were acquainted with each other and further that it was the petitioner who had introduced Deepak Kumar to Ev Raj. It was another co-accused Ev Raj who had sold the recovered cannabis to Deepak Kumar. (d) Search-cum-seizure memo prepared, post recovery of the contraband, does not bear signatures of the petitioner. It is only co-accused Deepak Kumar, who had signed search-cum-seizure memo. It was another co-accused Ev Raj who had sold the recovered cannabis to Deepak Kumar. (d) Search-cum-seizure memo prepared, post recovery of the contraband, does not bear signatures of the petitioner. It is only co-accused Deepak Kumar, who had signed search-cum-seizure memo. (e) The NCB form, which is filled at the spot, does not mention petitioner as an offender in column No. 2. Prima facie, it seems that petitioner does not even figure in the photographs clicked by the investigating agency at the spot. (f) Prima facie, from the record it appears that CDR does not indicate any call having been made by the petitioner. Though these are all the factors to be adjudicated upon by the Court of competent jurisdiction during trial after considering the evidence in accordance with law, however, in the facts of the instant case, at this stage, the above extracted grounds are sufficient to be considered as reasonable grounds in terms of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of offences alleged against him. In the facts of the instant case as have come out in the status report and the record, I am of the considered view that at this stage, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence alleged against him and, therefore, he has made out a case for enlargement on bail. The petitioner is in jail since 17.2.2020. More than two years have gone by. The respondent-State has not indicated any criminal record of the petitioner. It can be reasonably presumed that petitioner is not likely to commit offence in future. Apprehension of prosecution that the petitioner might tamper with the prosecution evidence and influence its witnesses can be taken care of by imposing stringent conditions. 5. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the aforesaid FIR on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lacs only) with two local sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court having jurisdiction over the concerned Police Station, subject to the following conditions:- (i) Petitioner is directed to join the investigation of the case as and when called for by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law. He shall fully cooperate the Investigating Officer and will appear before him in the concerned police station as and when called in accordance with law. (ii). Petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or hamper the investigation in any manner whatsoever. (iii). Petitioner will not leave India without prior permission of the Court. (iv). Petitioner shall not make any inducement, threat or promise, directly or indirectly, to the Investigating Officer or any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or any Police Officer. (v). Petitioner shall attend the trial on every hearing, unless exempted in accordance with law. (vi). Petitioner shall inform the Station House Officer of the concerned police station about his place of residence during bail and trial. Any change in the same shall also be communicated within two weeks thereafter. Petitioner shall furnish details of his Aadhar Card, Telephone Number, E-mail, PAN Card, Bank Account Number, if any. (vii) It is made clear that in case petitioner is arraigned as an accused, in future, in any FIR, then his bail is liable to be cancelled. It is open for the Investigating Agency to move appropriate application in that regard. In case of violation of any of the terms & conditions of the bail, respondent-State shall be at liberty to move appropriate application for cancellation of the bail. It is made clear that observations made above are only for the purpose of adjudication of instant bail petition and shall not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the matter. Learned Trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any of observations made hereinabove. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition stands disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any.