ORDER : 1. The instant petition has been maintained by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking his release in case FIR No. 99 of 2020, dated 31.07.2020, under Section 22-61-85 of the ND&PS Act, registered at Police Station Damtal, District Kangra, H.P. 2. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is permanent resident of the place, thus neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. No fruitful purpose will be served by keeping him behind the bars for an unlimited period, so he be released on bail. 3. Police report stands filed. Tersely the facts of the case, as emerge from the records, are that on 31.7.2020, at around 1:15 pm, Head Constable Rajesh Kumar along with Constable Sarvesh Kumar was on patrolling duty in connection with detection of cases under the Excise/NDPS, Act. When they reached near Railway/Crossing via Surajpur, they saw a person, who is coming on his motorcycle from Mohtali side and is going towards Surajpur. On seeing the police officials, he turned his motorcycle quickly towards katcha path. On the basis of suspicion, the police party chased and apprehended him. He was asked to produce the requisite documents pertaining to his vehicle. At the relevant time, Rakesh Kumar along with his son Ashish Kumar came there and petitioner was apprised about the situation. Petitioner divulged his name as Dalip Kumar, petitioner herein. Thereafter, police asked the petitioner to produce the documents, but he kept his hand on the cover kit fixed on the petrol tank, therefore, the Investigating Officer strictly asked him to show the documents of the vehicle in question. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer made him to open the cover of the tank and from there, one white & red colour carry bag was recovered. On checking, 485 mahroon colour intoxicated capsules (Marka Ridley) were found. The recovered capsules was again put in the same carry bag and on weighment, with the help of Digital Electronic Scale, it was found to be 328 grams. The recovered carry bag containing capsules was thereafter sealed in a cloth parcel with six seal ‘R’. Thereafter, the police completed all the codal formalities. Police prepared the spot map, recorded the statements of the witnesses and arrested the petitioner. The recovered carry bag containing capsules was thereafter sealed in a cloth parcel with six seal ‘R’. Thereafter, the police completed all the codal formalities. Police prepared the spot map, recorded the statements of the witnesses and arrested the petitioner. During the course of interrogation, it has come on record that so many cases are registered against the petitioner under different sections. As per the police, after completion of the investigation, challan stands presented in the learned Sessions Court and the case is now listed for prosecution evidence on 20.8.2022. Lastly, it is prayed that considering the quantity of the recovered capsules, i.e., commercial quantity (328 grams), the fact that the trial is in its initial stage and in case, at this stage, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence and flee from justice, the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State and gone through the records, carefully. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the story of the prosecution is totally improbable and independent witnesses have turned hostile. In these circumstances, at this moment, by exercising the powers of discretion, the petitioner be released on bail. He has further argued that the petitioner is not at all involved in the alleged offence. The petitioner is neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, as he is permanent resident of the place. He has argued that no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an unlimited period, especially when investigation is complete, nothing remains to be recovered at the instance of the petitioner. He has argued that the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, especially when investigation is complete, the custody of the petitioner is not at all required, so the bail application may be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. 6. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that earlier also he is involved in so many cases under the excise/NDPS Act and further in case the petitioner, at this stage, is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence or flee from justice, so the petition may be dismissed. 7. 6. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that earlier also he is involved in so many cases under the excise/NDPS Act and further in case the petitioner, at this stage, is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence or flee from justice, so the petition may be dismissed. 7. In rebuttal, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than one and half year and cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period, especially when investigation is complete, challan stands presented in the learned Sessions Court, nothing remains to be recovered at the instance of the petitioner, so the custody of the petitioner is not at all required by the police. He has argued that considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the bail petition may be allowed and the petitioner be enlarged on bail. 8. At this stage, considering the facts that the trial is in its initial and crucial stage, the manner in which the offence is alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, the petitioner is involved in excise/NDPS cases, the quantity recovered is a commercial quantity and the trial is pending adjudication and moreover this Court from the earlier conduct of the petitioner has reason to believe that the petitioner will involve himself in such kind of cases, in case he is enlarged on bail, also the fact that he is in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence and in a position to flee from justice and the petitioner in case, at this stage, enlarged on bail may threaten the prosecution witnesses and thwart the judicial process and also considering all the facets of the case and without elaborately discussing them at this stage, this Court finds that the instant is not a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in his favour. 9. In view of the foregoing discussions, the petition is without merits, deserve dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. 10. Needless to say that the observations made hereinabove are only confined for the adjudication of the instant petition and shall have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the main case, which shall be adjudicated on its own.