ORDER : 1. By way of instant petition filed under S. 439 Cr.P.C. prayer has been made on behalf of bail petitioner-Parma Ram, for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 161, dated 2.9.2021, under Ss. 20, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter, ‘Act’) registered at Police Station Sadar, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Pursuant to orders dated 23.12.2021 and 5.1.2022, respondent-State has filed status report. ASI Ashok Kumar has come present with record. Record perused and returned. 3. In nutshell, case of the prosecution is that on 2.9.2021, at 9.30 am, police after having received a secret information laid Naka at near HPMC Juice Shop at Sungal, District Bilaspur and stopped a Maruti Alto 800 bearing Registration No. HP-01K-7078 being driven by present bail petitioner and another vehicle i.e. Tempo Trax bearing registration No. HP-76-0647 being driven by persons namely Vir Chand and allegedly recovered 4.682 kg of Charas and currency of Rs. 4,29,500/- from the vehicle bearing Registration No. HP-76-0647. At the time of recovery of contraband and currency, person namely Devender was also sitting in vehicle bearing Registration No. HP-76-0647, being driven by the person namely Vir Chand. Since occupants of the aforesaid vehicles as detailed herein above, failed to render plausible explanation qua the possession of commercial quantity of contraband and currency of Rs. 4,29,500/- police after completion of formalities lodged FIR as taken note herein above and arrested all the persons i.e. Parma Ram, present bail petitioner, Vir Chand and Devender Kumar. During investigation Devinder Kumar, from whose vehicle commercial quantity of contraband came to be recovered, disclosed to the police that the contraband was to be further delivered/ sold to the person namely, Prakash Chand. Above named person also disclosed to the police that the vehicle bearing Registration No. HP-01K-7078 was being driven by Parma Ram, present bail petitioner, ahead of vehicle bearing Registration No. HP-76-0647, so that factum with regard to Naka if any laid by the police could be communicated to him. Since the present bail petitioner was allegedly piloting/escorting vehicle bearing Registration No. HP-76-0647 (Tempo Trax), he also came to be named in the FIR and since 2.9.2021, he is behind the bars. Since the present bail petitioner was allegedly piloting/escorting vehicle bearing Registration No. HP-76-0647 (Tempo Trax), he also came to be named in the FIR and since 2.9.2021, he is behind the bars. Since Challan stands filed in the competent court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from the present bail petitioner, he has approached this court in the instant proceedings praying therein for grant of regular bail. 4. Mr. Narinder Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, while fairly admitting factum with regard to filing of Challan in the competent court of law, contends that though nothing remains to be recovered from bail petitioner but keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by the bail petitioner, he does not deserve leniency and his prayer for bail deserves outright rejection. Mr. Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General further submits that though nothing was recovered from the conscious possession of present bail petitioner but there is overwhelming evidence available on record to demonstrate that the present bail petitioner was in constant touch with main accused Devender and VIR Chand and was escorting vehicle bearing Registration No. HP-76-0647 (Tempo Trax) by driving his car ahead of aforesaid vehicle and as such, it cannot be said that he has been falsely implicated. Mr. Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, while referring to S.29 of the Act submits that any person who abets or is a party to the offences punishable under the Act is also liable to be prosecuted under S. 29 of the Act and as such, there is no merit in the present petition and same may be dismissed accordingly. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this court finds that on the date of alleged incident, nothing came to be recovered from the vehicle bearing Registration No. HP-01K-7078 being driven by present bail petitioner, rather commercial quantity of contraband alongwith currency came to be recovered from the bag allegedly kept in vehicle bearing Registration No. HP-76-0647 (Tempo Trax) being driven by Devender, who disclosed that the present bail petitioner was driving his vehicle ahead of his (Devender’s) vehicle with a view to inform/apprise him factum of Naka, if any, laid by the police. Accused Devender, from whose conscious possession commercial quantity of contraband and currency came to be recovered, nowhere stated that he had purchased the contraband or was going to sell the same to the present bail petitioner rather he stated that the commercial quantity of contraband recovered from his vehicle was to be sold to one Prakash Chand, who already stands enlarged on bail, vide order dated 17.12.2021 passed by this Court in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 2206 of 2021. 6. Thought, it is stated in the status report that the Call Detail Report reveals that the present bail petitioner was in constant touch with accused Devender Kumar, one of occupants of vehicle in question but that may not be sufficient to conclude complicity, if any, of the present bail petitioner in offence allegedly committed by other accused, from whose conscious possession commercial quantity of contraband came to be recovered. Had the person, from whose conscious possession commercial quantity of contraband came to be recovered, disclosed to the police that he had purchased or was going to sell the commercial quantity of contraband recovered from him to the present bail petitioner, things would have been different, but in the case at hand, precise allegation against the present bail petitioner is that he was escorting vehicle, from which commercial quantity of contraband came to be recovered. Investigating Agency with a view to implicate the present bail petitioner, has placed heavy reliance upon the confessional statement of co-accused Devender Kumar, which otherwise is not admissible. Reliance in this regard is placed upon a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1 , wherein it has been observed as under: “155. Thus, to arrive at the conclusion that a confessional statement made before an officer designated under section 42 or section 53 can be the basis to convict a person under the NDPS Act, without any non-obstante clause doing away with section 25 of the Evidence Act, and without any safeguards, would be a direct infringement of the constitutional guarantees contained in Articles 14, 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution of India. 156. The judgment in Kanhaiyalal (supra) then goes on to follow Raj Kumar Karwal (supra) in paragraphs 44 and 45. For the reasons stated by us hereinabove, both these judgments do not state the law correctly, and are thus overruled by us. 156. The judgment in Kanhaiyalal (supra) then goes on to follow Raj Kumar Karwal (supra) in paragraphs 44 and 45. For the reasons stated by us hereinabove, both these judgments do not state the law correctly, and are thus overruled by us. Other judgments that expressly refer to and rely upon these judgments, or upon the principles laid down by these judgments, also stand overruled for the reasons given by us. 157. On the other hand, for the reasons given by us in this judgment, the judgments of Noor Aga (supra) and Nirmal Singh Pehlwan vs. Inspector, Customs, (2011) 12 SCC 298 are correct in law. 158. We answer the reference by stating: 158.1. That the officers who are invested with powers under section 53 of the NDPS Act are “police officers” within the meaning of section 25 of the Evidence Act, as a result of which any confessional statement made to them would be barred under the provisions of section 25 of the Evidence Act, and cannot be taken into account in order to convict an accused under the NDPS Act. 158.2. That a statement recorded under section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act.” 7. Since the contraband came to be recovered from the conscious possession of the co-accused, Devender, before its delivery to co-accused Prakash Chand, this court vide order dated 17.12.2021 passed in Cr.M.P. (M) No. 2206 of 2021, ordered to enlarge Parkash Chand on bail. Similarly in the case at hand, this court finds that save and except statement of co-accused Devender, there is no material evidence available on record to conclude complicity, if any, of the present bail petitioner in the commission of offence punishable under S.29 of Act. The question “Whether the present bail petitioner at the relevant time, was escorting vehicle being driven by accused Devender” needs to be established by prosecution leading cogent and convincing evidence before the learned trial Court. Mere telephonic conversation inter se accused and present bail petitioner, who are brothers, cannot be made a basis to conclude guilt, if any, of the present bail petitioner at this stage. 8. Mere telephonic conversation inter se accused and present bail petitioner, who are brothers, cannot be made a basis to conclude guilt, if any, of the present bail petitioner at this stage. 8. Since the commercial quantity of contraband alongwith currency never came to be recovered from the vehicle being driven by the present bail petitioner, this court sees no reason to deny the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail. 9. True, it is that keeping in view the commercial quantity of contraband recovered in the case at hand, rigours of S.37 of the Act are attracted but that does not mean that this court is estopped from enlarging the bail petitioner on bail in the case at hand. Bare perusal of S.37 of the Act clearly reveals that there is no complete bar for the court to grant bail in the cases involving commercial quantity, but court while doing so, at the first instance is required to provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the public prosecutor and thereafter, if it has reason to presume and believe that the person, seeking bail, has been falsely implicated and there is no likelihood of his indulging in such activities again, it can proceed to grant bail in cases involving commercial quantity of contraband. Though, aforesaid aspect of the matter is required to be considered and decided by learned trial court, in the totality of evidence collected on record by investigating agency, but keeping in view the aforesaid aspects of the matter, 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 the bail petitioner. 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 him to stringent conditions. 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 petitioner 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 Deputy 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 and Another decided on 6.2.2018 has held that freedom of an individual can not 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 vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 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 vs. 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 vs. 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. 5,00,000/- with two local sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, besides the 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. 16. 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. 17. 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 petition alone. The petition stands accordingly disposed of.