JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. Petitioner has approached this Court, invoking provisions of Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘Cr.PC’), seeking regular bail in case FIR No. 34 of 2020, dated 17.03.2020, registered under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ‘NDPS Act’) in Police Station Banjar, District Kullu, H.P. 2. Status report stands filed. Record was also made available. 3. As per status report, on 16.03.2020, at about 11.30 p.m. police party on Nakka duty, stopped a car coming from Gushaini side for checking and when police tried to approach the car for checking, car driver reversed it with speed and when police officials rushed towards the vehicle, he suddenly stopped the vehicle, and immediately thereafter, a person sitting on rear seat of driver side came out of the car and ran away towards the cliff. Other two persons sitting in the car were overpowered. Despite making effort to chase, third person who ran towards the cliff, could not be apprehended. Two persons, apprehended by the police, disclosed their names as Nitin Sharma (driver) and Rajesh Kumar and they also disclosed name of third person as Tilak Raj (petitioner). A yellow coloured bag kept on rear seat on the right side of Rajesh Kumar, was checked, wherein 8.076 kilograms charas was found. Recovered contraband was taken into possession and seized by following prescribed procedure and by sending Rukka, FIR was registered in Police Station Banjar and, thereafter, during investigation Nitin Sharma and Rajesh Kumar were arrested on 17.03.2020 at 6.05 a.m. 4. After search of Tilak Raj, he was apprehended and arrested near Sindhwa at 4.30 p.m. on 18.03.2020. 5. As per status report, during investigation, Tilak Raj made disclosure statement that co-accused Amar Singh, for a consideration of Rs.4,00,000/-, had supplied 8 kilograms charas to him. Call Detail Records (CDRs) of Tilak Raj (petitioner) and Amar Singh were also obtained and on the basis of CDRs and disclosure statement, Amar Singh co-accused was arrested on 07.06.2020 at 6.05 p.m. under Section 29 of NDPS Act. According to Investigating Agency, during interrogation, Amar Singh disclosed that 2 kilograms charas was extracted by him personally and remaining charas was collected by him by purchasing small quantities from different unknown persons and he admitted selling of 8 kilograms charas to Tilak Raj (petitioner) for a consideration of Rs.4,00,000/-. 6. According to Investigating Agency, during interrogation, Amar Singh disclosed that 2 kilograms charas was extracted by him personally and remaining charas was collected by him by purchasing small quantities from different unknown persons and he admitted selling of 8 kilograms charas to Tilak Raj (petitioner) for a consideration of Rs.4,00,000/-. 6. Vehicle was also taken into possession, but the same was released by order of the Court to its owner Hem Raj, who was brother of Tilak Raj. For throwing his mobile by Tilak Raj in a ravine (Khadd), Section 201 IPC was also added in the case. 7. As per status report, petitioner-Tilak Raj has been found involved in case FIR No.28 of 2016 dated 02.11.2016 registered under Sections 20 and 29 of NDPS Act. In that case, he was convicted and sentenced by Special Judge Mandi, H.P. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is neither owner of the vehicle nor SIM alleged to have been used by him was in his name. Further that, petitioner has been impleaded in the case only on the basis of disclosure statement made by co-accused Nitin Sharma and Rajesh Kumar and nothing has been recovered from the petitioner and he is behind the bars since about 3 years and, therefore, in view of pronouncements of the Supreme Court in Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1 and order dated 10.01.2022 pronounced by the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.242 of 2022, titled as State by (NCB) Bengaluru vs. Pallulabid Ahamad Arimutta & another, petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on paragraph 10 of the above referred pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Pallulabid Ahamad Arimutta’s case, which reads as under:- “10. It has been held in clear terms in Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamal Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1 , that a confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act will remain inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. In the teeth of the aforesaid decision, the arrests made by the petitioner-NCB, on the basis of the confession/ voluntary statements of the respondents or the co-accused under Section 67 of the NDSP Act, cannot form the basis for overturning the impugned orders releasing them on bail. In the teeth of the aforesaid decision, the arrests made by the petitioner-NCB, on the basis of the confession/ voluntary statements of the respondents or the co-accused under Section 67 of the NDSP Act, cannot form the basis for overturning the impugned orders releasing them on bail. The CDR details of some of the accused or the allegations of tampering of evidence on the part of one of the respondents is an aspect that will be examined the stage of trial. For the aforesaid reason, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the orders dated 16th January, 2020, 19th December, 2019 and 20th January, 2020 pased in SLP (Crl.) No@ Diary No.22702/2020, SLP (Crl.) No.1454/2021, SLP (Crl.) No.1465/2021, SLP (Crl.) No.1773-74/2021 and SLP (Crl.) No.2080/2021 respectively. The impugned orders are, accordingly, upheld and the Special Leave Petitions filed by the petitioner-NCB seeking cancellation of bail granted to the respective respondents, are dismissed as meritless.” 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that co-accused Amar Singh has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 29.12.2022, passed in Cr.M.P.(M) No. 2331 of 2022 and petitioner is similarly situated person and, thus, deserves to be enlarged on bail. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon order dated 15.03.2023, passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court, in Cr.M.P.(M) No. 493 of 2023, titled as Madan Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, wherein a person, having been made accused on the basis of disclosure statement in a case of recovery of 42 kilograms of charas, has been enlarged on bail. 12. Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that petitioner has been found involved in commission of heinous crime of such a nature which is not only ruining the individuals, but also damaging the families, society and Nation and, therefore, petitioner is not entitled for bail. 13. It has further been submitted by learned Additional Advocate General that petitioner could not be apprehended on the spot as he ran away from the spot by opening rear door of the vehicle and charas was also kept on rear seat of the vehicle. Owner of the vehicle was Hem Raj and SIM was in the name of Prashant Kumar Sagar, and the same was not being used by Tilak Raj (petitioner). Owner of the vehicle was Hem Raj and SIM was in the name of Prashant Kumar Sagar, and the same was not being used by Tilak Raj (petitioner). Further that, vehicle involved is a private vehicle, wherein NItin Sharma and Rajesh Kumar and Tilak Raj (petitioner) have been found travelling together alongwith charas of more than 8 kilograms and owner of vehicle Hem Raj is brother of Tilak Raj. Police personnel have seen the petitioner running from the vehicle when two other accused Nitin Sharma and Rajesh Kumar were apprehended in the vehicle by the Nakka party. Petitioner is the person who is brother of owner of vehicle and nobody else on behalf of owner was present in the vehicle. 14. As evident from the record of present case, petitioner, in present case, has not been made an accused only on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused, but there is other sufficient material to suspect and depict his involvement in commission of alleged offence. Case of petitioner is different than the case of co-accused Amar Singh as well as Madan Lal referred supra. 15. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances, but, without commenting on merits thereon and taking into account factors and parameters, as propounded by the Supreme Court and this Court, required to be considered at the time of adjudication of bail application, I am of the considered opinion that petitioner, at this stage, is not entitled for bail. 16. Observations made in this petition hereinbefore, shall not affect the merits of the case in any manner and are strictly confined for the disposal of the bail application. Accordingly, present petition is dismissed.