ORDER : 1. By way of instant petition filed under Section 439 of CRPC, prayer has been made by the bail petitioner namely Bittu, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 116 of 2019 dated 10.12.2019, under Sections 15, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act, registered at PS Banjar, District Kullu, H.P. Respondent-State has filed the status report in terms of order dated 13.5.2022. 2. Perusal of status report/record reveals that on 9.12.2019, police after having received secrete information laid Naka near Banjar road and allegedly signaled the car bearing registration No. HR26AU1919 to stop, but occupants of the car after having seen the police fled away from the spot leaving the aforesaid car on the spot. Police checked the car in question in the presence of the independent witnesses and allegedly recovered 61.80 kgs of poppy straw. After completion of necessary codal formalities, police lodged FIR detailed herein above and thereafter on the basis of registration of the car involved in the aforesaid incident apprehended person namely Kuldeep Singh, who allegedly disclosed to the police that car was sold by him to present bail petitioner Bittu. The above named person further disclosed to the police that on 9.12.2019, he alongwith present bail petitioner Bittu had gone to Banjar to purchase poppy straw for consideration of Rs. 50,000/-. On the basis of aforesaid disclosure made by the co-accused Kuldeep Aingh, petitioner herein came to be named in the FIR alongwith other co-accused. Though co-accused Kuldeep Singh and Roop Singh were arrested in the month of January, 2020, whereas present bail petitioner absconded and could only be apprehended on 9.11.2021, after filing of the challan in the competent court of law and since then he is behind bars. Since challan stands filed in the competent court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from him, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail. 3. Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General while fairly admitting factum with regard to filing of the Challan in the competent court of law contends that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, but keeping in the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by the bail petitioner, he does not deserve any leniency. Mr. 3. Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General while fairly admitting factum with regard to filing of the Challan in the competent court of law contends that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, but keeping in the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by the bail petitioner, he does not deserve any leniency. Mr. Bhatnagar, further submits that there is overwhelming evidence available on record suggestive of the fact that when car in question was stopped for checking by the police, bail petitioner alongwith co-accused Kuldeep Singh was travelling in the car, but they after seeing the police fled away from the spot. While making this Court to peruse the status report, learned Additional Advocate General, submits that three cases; two under the NDPS Act and one under Excise Act, already stand registered against the petitioner in the past and as such, it may not be in the interest of justice to enlarge him on bail because in the event of his being enlarged on bail, he may not only flee from justice but may again indulge in these activities. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that at the time of checking of car bearing registration No. HR26AU1919, none was found sitting there, rather as per case of the prosecution, occupants of the car after having seen the police fled away from the spot. It is only on the basis of registration number of the car in question, co-accused Kuldeep Singh was arrested, who during investigation disclosed to the police that he alongwith present bail petitioner had gone to Banjar on 9.12.2019, to purchase poppy straw for a consideration of Rs. 50,000/-. Co-accused Kuldeep though disclosed to the police that vehicle was sold by him to the present bail petitioner Bittu, but status report nowhere suggests that effort, if any, ever came to be made at the behest of the investigating agency to verify the aforesaid factum. Co-accused Roop Singh, from whom allegedly contraband was purchased by Kuldeep Singh and present bail petitioner, disclosed to the police that he had prior acquaintance with co-accused Kuldeep Singh and he had talked with him with regard to sale of poppy straws. Co-accused Roop Singh, from whom allegedly contraband was purchased by Kuldeep Singh and present bail petitioner, disclosed to the police that he had prior acquaintance with co-accused Kuldeep Singh and he had talked with him with regard to sale of poppy straws. He also disclosed to the police that on 9.12.2019, he had called the co-accused Kuldeep Singh for purchase of poppy straw and at that time, present petitioner was also present. Though as per the status report, co-accused Kuldeep Singh disclosed that at the time of purchase of poppy straw from co-accused, Roop Singh and present bail petitioner were also present, but such statement, if any, made by the co-accused to the police cannot be made basis to conclude complicity, if any, of the bail petitioner in the alleged commission of crime, rather such fact is required to be proved in accordance with law by leading cogent and convincing evidence. Since co-accused Kuldeep Singh never came to be apprehended on the spot by the police alongwith the contraband, it may be too premature, at this stage, to conclude the involvement of the present bail petitioner in the case whose name otherwise came to be named in the FIR on the basis of statement made by the co-accused Kuldeep. 5. Recently Hon’le Apex Court in case titled State by (NCB) Bengaluru v. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta and Another, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No. 1569 of 2021 decided on 10.1.2022, while placing reliance upon its earlier judgment passed in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1 , held that a confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, will remain inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the Act. Having taken note of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment, Hon’ble Apex Court upheld the order passed by the High Court of Karnataka granting bail to the accused arrested by the petitioner NCB on the basis of confessional/voluntary statement of the co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. Apart from above, Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment has held that CDR details of some of the accused or the allegations of tempering of evidence on the part of the respondents is an aspect that will be examined at the stage of the trial. 6. Apart from above, Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment has held that CDR details of some of the accused or the allegations of tempering of evidence on the part of the respondents is an aspect that will be examined at the stage of the trial. 6. True, it is that in the case at hand, contraband allegedly came to be recovered from the car owned by the present bail petitioner is of commercial quantity and as such rigours of Section 37 of the Act are attracted. However, careful perusal of Section 37 nowhere suggests that court considering prayer for grant of bail in a case involving commercial quantity is completely estopped from granting bail, rather in such like cases, notice is required to be issued to the Public Prosecutor before considering prayer for grant of bail. After having heard public Prosecutor, if court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that person seeking bail is not guilty of such offence and he is not likely to commit any offence during bail, it can proceed to grant bail. In the case at hand, none of the accused named in the FIR including the present bail petitioner ever came to be apprehended on the spot while contraband was allegedly recovered by the police from the car in question. Bail petitioner herein only came to be named in the FIR on the basis of statement made by co-accused Kuldeep and Roop Singh that on 9.12.2019, present bail petitioner had also gone to the Banjar for purchasing poppy straw, but as has been discussed herein above, statement made by the co-accused to the police under Section 67 of the Act may not be admissible as such, prayer made by the petitioner for grant of bail deserves to be allowed, especially, when his guilt is yet to be determined in the totality of evidence collected on record by the investigating agency. Contraband involved in the case at hand never came to be recovered from the exclusive and conscious possession of the petitioner, rather same was recovered from the car, occupants whereof had allegedly fled away from the spot and no one identified them. 7. Contraband involved in the case at hand never came to be recovered from the exclusive and conscious possession of the petitioner, rather same was recovered from the car, occupants whereof had allegedly fled away from the spot and no one identified them. 7. Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court have held in a catena of judgments that a person is deemed to be innocent, till the time his/her guilt is proved in accordance with law, as such, there is no justification to allow bail petitioner incarcerate in jail for an indefinite period during trial, especially when he has already suffered for more than six months. Apprehension expressed by learned Additional Advocate General that in the event of bail petitioner being enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice, can be best met by putting the bail petitioner to stringent conditions. 8. Needless to say, 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, bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. 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. See: Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2012) 1 Supreme Court Cases 49, Manoranjana Sinh Alias Gupta versus CBI, 2017 (5) SCC 218 and Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and Another, (2010) 14 SCC 496 . 9. Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 227/2018, Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, decided on 6.2.2018, has categorically held 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. Hon’ble Apex Court further held that while considering prayer for grant of bail, it is important to ascertain whether the accused was participating in the investigations to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and was not absconding or not appearing when required by the investigating officer. Hon’ble Apex Court further held that while considering prayer for grant of bail, it is important to ascertain whether the accused was participating in the investigations to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and was not absconding or not appearing when required by the investigating officer. Hon’ble Apex Court further held that if an accused is not hiding from the investigating officer or is hiding due to some genuine and expressed fear of being victimized, it would be a factor that a judge would need to consider in an appropriate case. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, petitioner has carved out a case for grant of bail, accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in aforesaid FIR, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- with one local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial Court, with 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; (d) He shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. 11. 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. 12. 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 petition stands accordingly disposed of.