JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. Petitioner is an accused in case FIR No. 77 of 2021, dated 19.12.2022, registered under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act (for short ‘NDPS’ Act), at Police Station Sainj, District Kullu, H.P. Petitioner is in custody since 22.12.2021. 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the petition are that on the basis of a prior information police apprehended a vehicle No. HP­01M­2710 being towed by recovery van No. HP­67­5034 on 19.12.2021 at about 12.00 noon. 6 kilograms 48 grams of charas was recovered from the vehicle. Case was registered. During investigation, it was found that the contraband belonged to accused Kumar Chand and accused Surajmani. Both the accused were arrested. During investigation, accused Kumar Chand disclosed that the charas was purchased from petitioner. Statement of accused Kumar Chand under Section 27 of Evidence Act was recorded and said accused is stated to have identified the place where he had taken delivery of contraband from petitioner. 3. On the basis of statement of co­accused, petitioner was arrested on 22.12.2021. As per the case of police, petitioner suffered a statement under Section 27 of Evidence Act on 24.12.2021 and disclosed that he had sold the recovered contraband to other co­accused for a sum of Rs.2,48,000/­, out of which Rs.90,000/­ had already been spent and balance of Rs.1,50,000/­ was lying in his shop. Accordingly, recovery of Rs.1,50,000/­ is alleged to have been made from the shop of the petitioner on his identification. It is further alleged that during investigation petitioner identified those spots in the jungle where he had prepared the charas. 4. Petitioner has approached this Court for grant of bail on the ground that there is no legal evidence against him. The implication of petitioner is false and with ulterior purposes. Petitioner is not involved in the crime in any manner. Petitioner is an insurance agent and is also running a shop. The money belong to him. Petitioner is stated to be permanent resident of Village Pakhadi, PO Tung, Tehsil Banjar, District Kullu, H.P. He has under taken to abide by all the terms conditions as may be imposed upon him. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that the accusation against the petitioner is of serious nature. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that the accusation against the petitioner is of serious nature. He is accused of commission of offence in which commercial quantity of charas is involved. He is not entitled to bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General and have also gone through the status report. 7. The gravity of accusation is one of the relevant facts for deciding the plea of bail but the same cannot be held to be sole criteria to deny the bail. Equally important is the nature of material collected by the investigating agency to support the accusation against the accused. 8. In the case in hand, petitioner has been implicated with the aid of Section 29 of the NDPS Act. Prosecution is relying upon the statement of co­accused, alleged statement of petitioner under Section 27 of Evidence Act and consequent recovery of Rs.1,50,000/­, to prove charge against the petitioner. 9. The disclosure made by co­accused cannot be read against the petitioner as per the mandate of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamilnadu, reported in (2021) 4 SCC 1 . 10. To prove that the amount of Rs.1,50,000/­ allegedly recovered from the shop of petitioner was tainted money or the money paid in lieu of sale of charas, something more will be required to be proved. 11. The above observations are merely for the purpose of prima facie assessing the seriousness and gravity of allegations against the petitioner and material collected in support thereof. 12. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the view that petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail in his favour. The facts and circumstances of the case are sufficient to infer reasonable grounds for believing that petitioner is not accused of offence alleged against him. Since there is no past criminal history, relating to his involvement in cases under NDPS Act. There is no material against the petitioner to suggest that he will again indulge in similar criminal activities, if released on bail. 13. Petitioner is already in custody since 22.12.2021. Since there is no past criminal history, relating to his involvement in cases under NDPS Act. There is no material against the petitioner to suggest that he will again indulge in similar criminal activities, if released on bail. 13. Petitioner is already in custody since 22.12.2021. He is permanent resident of Village Pakhadi, P.O. Tung, Tehsil Banjar, District Kullu, H.P. and there is nothing on record to suggest that petitioner may abscond or flee from the course of justice. In order to secure fair trial, the petitioner can be put to appropriate terms. 14. Keeping in view the facts of the case, the bail petition is allowed and petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in case FIR No.77 of 2021, dated 19.12.2021, registered under Sections 20, 25 & 29 of NDPS, Act, at Police Station Sainj, District Kullu, H.P., on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/­ with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court. This order shall, however, be subject to the following conditions:­ (i) Petitioner shall regularly attend the trial of the case before learned Trial Court and shall not cause any delay in its conclusion. (ii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence, in any manner, whatsoever and shall not dissuade any person from speaking the truth in relation to the facts of the case in hand. (iii) Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of learned trial Court till completion of trial. (iv) In case of indulgence of petitioner in any offence of similar nature during pendency of trial, bail granted to the petitioner shall stand cancelled. 15. Any expression of opinion herein­above shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and shall be deemed only for the purpose of disposal of this petition.