ORDER : 1. Bail petitioner, namely, Kesse Gerald, who is a foreign national and is behind the bars since 4.2.2021, has approached this Court for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 22 of 2021, dated 30.1.2021, under Sections 20, 21 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ‘NDPS Act’) and under Section 14 of Foreigner Act registered at Police Station Bhuntar, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Pursuant to notice issued in the instant proceedings, respondent-State has filed the status report, perusal whereof reveals that on 3.2.2021 police party, while on patrolling duty near TCP Bajora, District Kullu, (HP) stopped a car bearing Registration No. HP-34C-0671 for checking, Occupants of the car, six in number, got perplexed after having seen the police, as such, police deemed it necessary to effect personal search of the car and its occupants. After having associated independent witnesses, police conducted search and recovered one polythene bag from the dash board of the car containing 55 grams Heroine/Chitta. After completion of necessary codal formalities, police lodged FIR against the occupants of the car, namely, Jayant Sharma and Karan Sharma and arrested them. During investigation, above named persons disclosed to the police that they had purchased aforesaid quantity of contraband for a sum of Rs. 44,000/- from a Nigerian, namely, Alex from Dwarika, New Delhi. They also provided mobile number of the foreign national named herein above. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid information, police took both the accused named herein above to Delhi and raided the house of present bail petitioner at Dwarika, New Delhi. After having seen the police, two persons succeeded in fleeing from the house, whereas present bail petitioner was apprehended with the rucksack bag containing 6.297 KG heroine and 362 gram of Ganja. During investigation, police found that the room, from where aforesaid quantity of contraband came to be recovered was given on the lease to the person namely, Afamufile Goodness by person, namely, Vinod Kumar. Two persons namely Bidiaso Nnamdi Clifford and Ihedirioha Chiedozie Harrison were also residing there. During investigation, police called aforesaid persons for investigation and arrested them on 8.7.2021. Present bail petitioner as well as persons named herein above are in custody, whereas two persons Jayant Sharma and Karan Sharmaj, from whose conscious possession 55 grams of heroine was recovered, stand enlarged on bail. During investigation, police called aforesaid persons for investigation and arrested them on 8.7.2021. Present bail petitioner as well as persons named herein above are in custody, whereas two persons Jayant Sharma and Karan Sharmaj, from whose conscious possession 55 grams of heroine was recovered, stand enlarged on bail. Since investigation in the case is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, he has approached this Court for grant of regular bail. 4. While fairly admitting the factum with regard to filing of challan in the competent Court of law, Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General submits that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner but keeping in view the gravity of offence committed by him, he does not deserve any leniency and as such prayer for grant of bail made on his behalf deserves outright rejection. He further submits that there is overwhelming evidence available on record suggestive of the fact that Jayant Sharma and Karan Sharma not only purchased 55 grams of heroine from present bail petitioner but present bail petitioner himself was apprehended by police at Delhi with commercial quantity of contraband i.e. 6.297 KG Heroine and 362 GM Ganja. He submits that since petitioner herein, was arrested with commercial quantity of contraband, he is otherwise not entitled for grant of regular bail in view of the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which prohibits grant of bail in the cases involving commercial quantity of contraband. Lastly he submits that the bail petitioner, who is a foreign national, had been indulging in serious crime having adverse impact on the society and as such it may not be in the interest of justice to enlarge him on bail, who otherwise in the event of his enlargement on bail may flee from justice. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while refuting the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the learned Additional Advocate General contends that no recovery, if any, ever came to be effected from the conscious possession of the present bail petitioner, rather 55 GM of heroine was recovered from the conscious possession of co-accused, Jayant Sharma and Karan Sharma and the petitioner herein has been falsely implicated. He further submits that though case of the Investigating Agency is that during raid conducted in the house of present bail petitioner, commercial quantity of contraband was recovered but since such recovery was made at Delhi, FIR, if any, lodged against the bail petitioner in Himachal Pradesh is otherwise not sustainable and as such he deserves to be enlarged on bail forthwith. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that initially 55 GM of heroine was recovered from the car bearing registration No HP 34C-0671 being driven by co-accused Jayant Sharma, who allegedly divulged to the police that he had purchased aforesaid quantity of contraband for a sum of Rs. 44,000/- from the present bail petitioner at Delhi. It is also not in dispute that on the basis of information shared by co-accused named herein above, house of the present bail petitioner was raided at Delhi and commercial quantity of contraband was recovered from the bag of the present bail petitioner. No doubt in the case at hand petitioner came to be arrested on the basis of disclosure statement made by co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, but this Court cannot loose sight of the fact that during investigation of the FIR, police raided the house of the present bail petitioner at Delhi and recovered commercial quantity of contraband from his conscious possession. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance upon judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1 , vehemently argued that the disclosure statement, if any, made by co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act could not be made basis for registering the case against the present bail petitioner but once it is not in dispute that during investigation huge quantity of contraband came to be recovered from the conscious possession of the bail petitioner, aforesaid argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is of no consequence. So far judgment passed in case titled as Tofan Singh (supra), relied upon by the Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is concerned, same has no application in the present case for the reason that police though on the basis of information shared by co-accused raided the house of the present bail petitioner but recovered commercial quantity of contraband from the conscious possession of the bail petitioner. No doubt in Tofan Singh (supra), Hon’ble Apex Court has held that disclosure statement, if any made by accused under Section 67 of NDPS Act cannot be made basis for registering the case against other person. However in the case at hand though co-accused made disclosure statement under Section 67 of NDPS Act with regard to involvement of present bail petitioner but commercial quantity of contraband came to be recovered from the house of the bail petitioner during raid made by the police. Since commercial quantity of contraband came to be recovered from the conscious possession of present bail petitioner, may be on the basis of disclosure statement made by co-accused, no benefit of judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Tofan Singh (supra), can be claimed by him. 8. Recently Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled as NCB vs. Mohit Agarwal, decided on 19.7.2022 in similar facts and circumstances held that even dehors the confessional statement of the respondent and the other co-accused recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, which were subsequently retracted by them, the other circumstantial evidence brought on record by the appellant-NCB ought to have dissuaded the High Court from exercising its discretion in favour of the respondent and concluding that there were reasonable grounds to justify that he was not guilty of such an offence under the NDPS Act, especially when on the basis of confessional statement made by co-accused under Section 67 of NDPS Act, huge quantity of contraband came to be recovered from the conscious possession of the person allegedly named by the co-accused: “xxx xxx xxx 16. Coming back to the facts of the instant case, the learned Single Judge of the High Court cannot be faulted for holding that the appellant- NCB could not have relied on the confessional statements of the respondent and the other co-accused recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act in the light of law laid down by a Three Judges Bench of this Court in Tofan Singh (supra), wherein as per the majority decision, a confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act has been held to be inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. Therefore, the admissions made by the respondent while in custody to the effect that he had illegally traded in narcotic drugs, will have to be kept aside. However, this was not the only material that the appellant- NCB had relied on to oppose the bail application filed by the respondent. The appellant-NCB had specifically stated that it was the disclosures made by the respondent that had led the NCB team to arrive at and raid the godown of the co-accused, Promod Jaipuria which resulted in the recovery of a large haul of different psychotropic substances in the form of tablets, injections and syrups. Counsel for the appellant-NCB had also pointed out that it was the respondent who had disclosed the Criminal Appeal Nos........of 2022 @ Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 6128-6129 of 2021 address and location of the co-accused, Promod Jaipuria who was arrested later on and the CDR details of the mobile phones of all co-accused including the respondent herein showed that they were in touch with each other. 17. Even dehors the confessional statement of the respondent and the other co-accused recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, which were subsequently retracted by them, the other circumstantial evidence brought on record by the appellant-NCB ought to have dissuaded the High Court from exercising its discretion in favour of the respondent and concluding that there were reasonable grounds to justify that he was not guilty of such an offence under the NDPS Act. We are not persuaded by the submission made by learned counsel for the respondent and the observation made in the impugned order that since nothing was found from the possession of the respondent, he is not guilty of the offence for which he has been charged. We are not persuaded by the submission made by learned counsel for the respondent and the observation made in the impugned order that since nothing was found from the possession of the respondent, he is not guilty of the offence for which he has been charged. Such an assumption would be premature at this stage. xxx xxx xxx.” 9. Similarly, this Court finds no merit in the submission of Learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner could not be named in the FIR, especially when recovery came to be effected in furtherance of FIR lodged in Himachal Pradesh. Had the police in Himachal Pradesh not received information with regard to sale and purchase of contraband made by the present bail petitioner in favour of other co-accused, namely, Jayant Sharma and Karan Sharma, there was no occasion for them to have effected the recovery of the contraband at Delhi. Investigation/raid, if any, was conducted by police of Himachal Pradesh in Delhi, pursuant to the case lodged in State of Himachal Pradesh as such no illegality can be said to have been committed by the police, while naming present bail petitioner as accused in the FIR, which is subject matter of the present case. Though learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there is no concrete evidence available on record, suggestive of the fact that present bail petitioner is indulging in illegal trade of narcotics and his client has been falsely implicated but having taken note of the commercial quantity of contraband, which came to be recovered from the conscious possession of the present bail petitioner, rigors of Section 37 of the Act are attracted. No doubt, careful perusal of Section 37 of the Act nowhere suggests that there is compete bar for granting bail but in such like cases and Court after having taken note of the gravity of offence may proceed to grant bail, if it is satisfied that in the event accused is enlarged on bail, he will not indulge in such activities again or he has been falsely implicated. However, in the instant case there is no circumstance, which may persuade this court to agree with the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the bail petitioner has been falsely implicated and in the event he is enlarged on bail he not will indulge in such cases. However, in the instant case there is no circumstance, which may persuade this court to agree with the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the bail petitioner has been falsely implicated and in the event he is enlarged on bail he not will indulge in such cases. This Court can take judicial note of the fact that number of cases having involvement of foreign nationals, especially Nigerian is on increase and in the case at hand, bail petitioner is a foreign national accused of having committed heinous crime having an adverse impact upon society and as such, this court sees no reason to accede to the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner to grant bail. No doubt freedom of an individual cannot be curtailed for an indefinite period but in such like cases, where act of individual poses great threat to the society at large, especially to younger generations, he/she is estopped from raising plea of right to personal freedom, as enshrined under the Constitution of India. 10. In view of the detailed discussion made herein above, this Court finds no merit in the instant petition and the same is dismissed. However having taken note of the fact that petitioner is behind the bars for more than one year, this court hopes and trusts that the learned trial court would make sincere efforts to conclude the trial expeditiously preferably within eight months. 11. Otherwise also, this Court on administrative as well as on judicial side has been repeatedly advising repeatedly Courts below to expedite the trial of under-trials, so that freedom of such under-trial is not curtailed unnecessarily. Registry to apprise learned trial Court with regard to passing of the instant order, enabling it to do the needful in terms of instant order within the time stipulated above. 12. The petition stands dismissed in the aforesaid terms.