ORDER : 1. By way of present petition filed under S. 439 CrPC, bail petitioner, Madan Lal, has approached this Court, for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 376, dated 27.12.2019 under Ss. 8, 20, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and S. 181 of Motor Vehicles Act registered at Police Station Sadar, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Respondent State has filed status report, perusal whereof reveals that on 27.12.2019, vehicle bearing registration No. HP34D-4317, Alto car, coming from Bhunter side was stopped for checking by police at 1.30 pm, near Kota Dhar. Since driver and other occupants of the car got perplexed on seeing the police, police deemed it necessary to effect search of vehicle and the occupants, as such, after associating independent witnesses, police effected search of the vehicle and its occupants and allegedly recovered one rucksack kept under front seat, containing 1.695 kg Charas. Since occupants of the car were unable to render any explanation qua the possession of the aforesaid commercial quantity of the contraband, police after registration of FIR, arrested the accused on 27.12.2019 and since then, all the accused are behind the bars. Since Challan stands filed in the competent Court of law and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, for grant of regular bail. It has been averred in the petition and further canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner that for last two years and ten months, petitioner is behind bars and till date only four prosecution witnesses have been examined, and as such, there is every likelihood of delay in conclusion of trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while inviting attention of this court to various judgments passed by Hon'ble Apex Court and this court, submits that delay in trial has been held to be violative of Art. 21 of the Constitution of India and since considerable time is likely to be consumed in conclusion of the trial, petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail because, due to protracted trial, incarceration of the bail petitioner would amount to pre-trial conviction of the petitioner. 3. Mr. 3. Mr. Narinder Guleria, learned Additional Advocate General, while fairly acknowledging the factum with regard to filing of Challan in the competent court of law, contends that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, but keeping in view gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed by the bail petitioner, he does not deserve any leniency and his prayer for grant of bail, deserves outright rejection. While fairly admitting the fact that till date only four prosecution witnesses have been examined, learned Additional Advocate General submits that since the bail petitioner has indulged in a heinous crime, having an adverse impact upon the society, it may not be in the interest of justice to enlarge him on bail, because, in that event, he may not only flee from justice but may indulge in such activities again, as such, his prayer for grant of bail deserves outright rejection. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record this court finds that commercial quantity of contraband was allegedly recovered from the vehicle in question, which was being driven by Om Parkash. Since petitioner was one of occupants of car, from which commercial quantity of contraband was recovered, he was named in the FIR and is behind the bars since 27.12.2019, alongwith other accused. 5. Though having perused status report, wherein it has been stated that recovery was effected in the presence of independent witnesses, this court finds it difficult to agree with learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that his client has been falsely implicated but having taken note of the fact that the petitioner is behind bars for two years and ten months now and till date only four prosecution witnesses have been examined, whereas, ten more prosecution witnesses remain to be examined, this court has reasons to believe that considerable time is still likely to be consumed in conclusion of the trial and it may not be in the interest of justice to allow the bail petitioner to remain behind the bars, as it would definitely amount to pre-trial conviction of the petitioner. 6. 6. Hon'ble Apex Court having taken note of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial in similar facts ordered for enlargement of accused on bail in Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan v. The State of West Bengal, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5769 of 2022 decided on 1.8.2022 and in Abdul Majeed Lone v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No. 3961 of 2022, decided on 1.8.2022, who were also framed under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and were behind the bars for approximately two years and there was no likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future, subject to certain conditions. 7. Placing reliance upon aforesaid judgments, a Co-ordinate Bench of this court in CrMP(M) No. 1328 of 2022 titled Roop Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, decided on 6.9.2022, also ordered for enlargement of an accused, who was allegedly apprehended carrying commercial quantity of Tramadol, on the ground of delay in conclusion of trial. 8. Apart from above judgment, Co-ordinate Bench of this court while granting bail vide order dated 22.3.2021 in CrMP(M) No. 35 of 2021 titled Ajay Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, also placed reliance upon a judgment delivered by a three-Judge Bench in Cr. Appeal No. 668 of 2020 titled Amrit Singh Moni v. State of Himachal Pradesh, decided on 12.10.2020, wherein petitioner was allegedly found in possession of 3285 grams of charas from a vehicle, wherein four other persons were sitting. 9. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, to substantiate his plea for enlarging the petitioner on bail, has referred order ate 12.10.20220 passed by a three judges Bench of the Supreme Court, in Criminal Appeal No. 668 of 2020, titled Amrit Singh Moni v. State of Himachal Pradesh, whereby petitioner therein, facing trial for recovery of 3.285 kilograms charas from a vehicle, alongwith four other persons, was enlarged on bail, for having been in detention for 2 years and 7 months, as till then out of 14 witnesses, 7 witnesses were yet to be examined and last witness was examined in February, 2020 and, thereafter, there as no further progress in the trial. 10. Learned Additional Advocate General, referring to judgment of a three Judges Bench of Supreme Court, passed on 19.7.2022 in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal contends that period of detention cannot be a ground for enlarging the petitioner on bail. 11. 10. Learned Additional Advocate General, referring to judgment of a three Judges Bench of Supreme Court, passed on 19.7.2022 in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit Aggarwal contends that period of detention cannot be a ground for enlarging the petitioner on bail. 11. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in Mohit Aggarwal, huge commercial quantity of 20 kilograms of Tramadol, against minimum commercial quantity of 250 grams, was recovered, whereas, in the present case, the recovered quantity is little more than the commercial quantity. 12. In similar circumstances, in CrMP(M) No. 1255 of 2022, titled Puran Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh, decided on 28.7.2022, another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, having taken note of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial, ordered enlargement on bail of the person, who was apprehended with 1.996 kg of charas. 13. No doubt quantity of contraband allegedly recovered from the bail petitioner is commercial and as such, rigours of S. 37 of the Act are attracted but bare perusal of provisions contained under S.37 nowhere suggests that no bail can be granted in cases involving commercial quantity rather in such cases, court after affording due opportunity of hearing to public prosecutor can proceed to grant bail, if it is satisfied that the bail petitioner has been falsely implicated and in the event of bail he will not indulge in such activities again. 14. In the instant case, bail petitioner is behind bars since 2 years and 10 months and till date trial has not been completed and there are very bleak chances of conclusion of the same in near future, as such, there appears to be no justification to keep the bail petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period, during trial, keeping in view the fact that the bail petitioner is a first offender and there is no other case against him, apart from the present one. 15. 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. Apprehension expressed by learned Assistant 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. 16. Apprehension expressed by learned Assistant 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. 16. Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 227/2018, Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr 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. 17. Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases 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. 18. In Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta versus 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. 19. The Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus 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. 20. In view of above, bail petitioner has carved out a case for himself, as such, present petition is allowed. prima facie case, nature and gravity of accusation, punishment involved, apprehension of repetition of offence and witnesses being influenced. 20. 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.1.00 Lakh with two sureties surety in the like amount each, 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; and (d) He shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. 21. 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. 22. 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. A downloaded copy of this order shall be accepted by the learned trial Court, while accepting the bail bonds from the petitioner and in case, said court intends to ascertain the veracity of the downloaded copy of order presented to it, same may be ascertained from the official website of this Court.