ORDER : 1. By way of instant petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. prayer has been made on behalf the petitioner namely Ravinder Kumar for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 82/2021, dated 10.08.2021, under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short “the Act”) registered at Police Station Banjar, District Kullu, H.P. 2. Respondent-State has filed status report, perusal whereof reveals that on 10.08.2021, vehicle bearing No. HP-01B-0830, being driven by co-accused Akshay Kumar, came to be stopped by police party for checking, apprehending that person sitting next to driver of the car may be possessing some suspicious substance, as such, police deemed it necessary to conduct his personal search as well as of vehicle and after having associated independent witnesses, allegedly, recovered 1.107 Kg of charas from the bag kept under the legs of present bail petitioner. Since, occupants of the car, as detailed hereinabove, failed to render plausible explanation qua possession of aforesaid commercial quantity of contraband, police after completion of necessary codal formalities, lodged FIR, as detailed hereinabove and since then, bail petitioner is behind bars, whereas co-accused Akshay Kumar, already stands enlarged on bail, vide order dated 25th October, 2021, passed by this Court in Cr. M.P. (M) No. 1996 of 2021. Since, investigation in this case is complete and nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, prayer has been made on his behalf for grant of regular bail. 3. While fairly admitting factum with regard to filing of challan in the competent court of law, Mr. Arvind Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, contends that though nothing remains to be recovered from the present bail petitioner, but keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by him, prayer having been made on his behalf for grant of bail deserves outright rejection. Mr. Sharma, further submits that it stands duly established on record that commercial quantity of charas came to be recovered from the bag kept under the legs of present bail petitioner, while he was travelling in car being driven by co-accused Akshay Kumar and as such, it cannot be claimed that he has been falsely implicated. Lastly, Mr. Mr. Sharma, further submits that it stands duly established on record that commercial quantity of charas came to be recovered from the bag kept under the legs of present bail petitioner, while he was travelling in car being driven by co-accused Akshay Kumar and as such, it cannot be claimed that he has been falsely implicated. Lastly, Mr. Sharma, contends that keeping in view the quantity of contraband, allegedly, recovered from the present bail petitioner, it cannot be said that the bail petitioner being a drug addict was carrying aforesaid quantity for his own consumption, rather presumption is that he indulges in illegal trade of narcotics and as such, his enlargement on bail, may not be in the larger interest of society. 4. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that commercial quantity of charas came to be recovered from the bag kept under the legs of bail petitioner when he was travelling in vehicle bearing No. HP-01B-0830 being driven by co-accused Akshay Kumar, who already stands enlarged on bail, as has been taken note hereinabove. However, version put-forth by police with regard to recovery of contraband is highly doubtful. As per police, commercial quantity of charas was kept in a bag and on opening of bag in the presence of independent witnesses, it recovered one saving bank account passbook of co-accused Akshay Kumar and Aadhar Card of present bail petitioner besides commercial quantity of contraband. It is highly unbelievable that person carrying/transporting commercial quantity of contraband would keep documents relating to his identity in the bag containing contraband. Had only one of the accused kept document pertaining to his identity in a bag containing contraband, this Court, would have agreed with the version put-forth by police, but it is highly improbable that two accused allegedly carrying commercial quantity of contraband would keep documents pertaining to their identities in the bag containing commercial quantity. Normally, Aadhar Card, is kept in purse or pocket not in a bag. Similarly, there can be no occasion to keep bank account book in bag containing contraband. Normally, Aadhar Card, is kept in purse or pocket not in a bag. Similarly, there can be no occasion to keep bank account book in bag containing contraband. Though call detail report collected on record reveals that bail petitioner was in constant touch with one lady namely Kalu from whom, he allegedly purchased commercial quantity of contraband, but that may not be sufficient to conclude/rule-out complicity of accused in commission of offence, especially when for the reasons stated hereinabove, entire recovery of contraband is doubtful. 5. Since, in the case at hand, commercial quantity of contraband came to be recovered, rigors of Section 37 are attracted, but bare perusal of Section 37 of the Act, nowhere suggests that there is complete bar for this Court to grant bail in cases involving commercial quantity, rather, in such like cases, court after having afforded an opportunity of being heard to the public prosecutor can proceed to grant bail in cases involving commercial quantity, if it is stratified that accused has been falsely implicated and there is no likelihood of his indulging in such activities during trial. In the case at hand, for the facts/reasons noted/stated hereinabove, this Court has a reason to presume and believe that recovery is doubtful and perusal of status report clearly reveals that at present no case save and except the case at hand stands registered against the bail petitioner under NDPS, Act. 6. Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court in catena of cases have repeatedly held that till the time, guilt of a person is not proved in accordance with law, he/she is deemed to be innocent and as such, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the bail petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period during trial, especially when nothing remains to be recovered by him. 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 the stringent conditions. 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 227/2018, Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, has held that freedom of an individual cannot be curtailed for indefinite period, especially when his/her guilt is yet to be proved. 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 227/2018, Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, has held that freedom of an individual cannot 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. 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 49, held as under: “The 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. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The Courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. Detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some un-convicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases “necessity” is the operative test. In India, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an un-convicted person for the propose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson.” 9. In Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta vs. CBI, 2017 (5) SCC 218 , The Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: “This Court in Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI (supra), also involving an economic offence of formidable magnitude, while dealing with the issue of grant of bail, had observed that deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment unless it is required to ensure that an accused person would stand his trial when called upon and that the courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and found guilty. It was underlined that the object of bail is neither punitive or preventive. This Court sounded a caveat that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of a conduct whether an accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an un-convicted person for the purpose of giving him to taste of imprisonment as a lesson. It was enunciated that since the jurisdiction to grant bail to an accused pending trial or in appeal against conviction is discretionary in nature, it has to be exercised with care ad caution by balancing the valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the society in general. It was elucidated that the seriousness of the charge, is no doubt one of the relevant considerations while examining the application of bail but it was not only the test or the factor and the grant or denial of such privilege, is regulated to a large extent by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. That detention in custody of under trial prisoners for an indefinite period would amount to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution was highlighted.” 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee and Another, (2010) 14 SCC 496 , has laid down the following principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail: (i) whether there is any prima-facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence. (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation. (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction. (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail. (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation. (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction. (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail. (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused. (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated. (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced. (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, bail 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. 1,00,000/- with two local sureties 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. 12. 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. 13. 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.