ORDER : 1. The petitioner herein has preferred the instant petition for grant of bail in case titled as “NCB v/s Irshad Ahmed Parray and Ors.” pending before the court of Principal Sessions Judge, Samba (for short “the trial court”) for offences under Sections 8, 20, 29 and 60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “the Act of 1985”). 2. Case set up by the prosecution against the petitioner is that upon a secret information received from reliable sources on 22.10.2014, a truck bearing registration No. JK-13A-4571 coming from Kashmir Valley through Dhar Road to Samba came to be stopped at a Naka laid near Village Nud, Samba at Dhar Road on 23.10.2014 at about 0435 hours and one Intelligence Officer, namely, Satish Kumar Sharma disclosed his identity to the driver of the truck and two other persons sitting therein, whereafter the driver of the truck disclosed his name as Nazir Ahmad Lone - the present petitioner and the two other persons as Zakir Mushtaq Bandh – the cleaner of the truck and one Irshad Ahmed Parray – the friend of said cleaner. 3. It is further the case of the prosecution that a notice under Section 50 of the Act of 1985 was given to the driver and the two persons travelling in the truck that they have a right to get their personal search conducted in presence of any Magistrate or Gazetted Officer who, however, denied the necessity of such a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer and allowed the Intelligence Officer to conduct their search whereupon nothing has been recovered from them, however, upon the search of the cabin of the driver, one polythene bag came to be recovered kept below the back side of the driver’s seat wherein after opening the same, 38 round shape balls were recovered wrapped in yellow and white colour tape and on an inquiry, the driver of the truck, his cleaner as also the co-traveler reveal that the recovered material is Charas whereafter the material was tested with Drug Detection Kit which showed the positive result for Charas and the said material weighed 3.840 Kgs whereafter two samples were drawn and sealed and the remaining material was also sealed and test memo were prepared on spot. 4. 4. According to the prosecution version on an enquiry about the source of drug, it was revealed that the substance belongs to one Mohd. Syeed Shah S/o Ghulam Rasool Shah R/o Dewanbagh, PO & PS : Bijbhera, District Anantnag (J&K) and that the driver of the truck (present petitioner) was unaware of the said substance at the departure of the truck, however, was informed about the same at Dhar Road by the cleaner and the co-traveler and that the substance had to be delivered to said Mohd. Sayeed Shah at Kalibari, Kathua. 5. It is further the case of the prosecution that Panchnama was prepared on spot and signatures of the petitioner, the cleaner and the co-traveler travelling in the truck was obtained besides recording the statements of independent witnesses, namely, Ramesh Kumar and Anand Kumar of Village Fant Kholi, Uttar Pradesh as also of the Intelligence Officer. 6. According to the prosecution version, notice under Section 67 of the Act of 1985 was given to the accused persons and their voluntary statements were recorded under Section 67 of the Act of 1985 wherein they admitted the recovery of the contraband of 3.840 Kgs Charas from the truck in question and also admitted to have received the same from Mohd. Sayeed Shah, to be delivered to said Mohd. Sayeed Shah at Kalibari, Kathua against the payment of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid by him to them and consequently, the said Mohd. Sayeed Shah also came to be arrested who made a statement under Section 67 of the Act of 1985 admitting therein that the substance belongs to him. 7. It is the case set up by the petitioner herein prior to the filing of the instant petition had filed an application for grant of bail, before the trial court on the ground that he is the sole bread earner of his family as also to look after his ailing mother, wherein the said application concession of bail was extended to the petitioner as an interim measure, however, the petitioner thereafter did not surrender himself resulting into securing his presence by issuance of non-bailable warrants. 8. 8. It is stated by the petitioner that after he came to be granted the concession of interim bail by the trial court, the FIR/chargesheet came to be challenged by one Irshad Ahmed Parray before this Court wherein the record of the trial court was summoned along with the bail application of the petitioner and he, as such, had remained under an impression that since the record of the case is lying before this Court, as such, did not appear before the trial court which non-appearance was neither deliberate nor intentional and also owing to the fact that the petitioner have had no notice about the fact of remitting of the record back to the trial court and the hearing fixed therein in the case before the trial court. 9. Objections to the application have been filed by the respondent wherein the application is being opposed fundamentally on the premise that the petitioner after availing the concession of interim bail did not surrender after its expiry and, in fact, jumped over the same, as such, is not entitled now to the concession of bail. The factual version of the prosecution case is also reiterated as has been noticed in the preceding paras besides stating that the trial of the case is at a crucial stage and in the event of the release of the petitioner on bail, there is every possibility of the evidence being tampered with by him. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner while making his submission would reiterate the contentions raised in the application and while augmenting the same invited the attention of this Court to the bail granted to the co-accused/main accused, namely, Mohd. Sayeed Shah by this Court facing the trial of the case for the same offences which the petitioner is facing. Mr. Sharma while referring to the grant of bail to said accused Mohd. Sayeed Shah by this Court on 11.08.2023 passed in Bail App No. 330/2022 would pray for grant of the bail to the petitioner herein as well on the bedrock of parity. Mr. Mr. Sharma while referring to the grant of bail to said accused Mohd. Sayeed Shah by this Court on 11.08.2023 passed in Bail App No. 330/2022 would pray for grant of the bail to the petitioner herein as well on the bedrock of parity. Mr. Sharma also referred to the statement of the Intelligence Officer made by him before the trial court on 29.11.2023 supporting the petitioner’s claim for bail which being relevant is reproduced hereunder:- “It is correct to say that when the above said truck had started from Srinagar, Nazir Ahmed Lone had not any knowledge about the existence of Charas in the trick. Nazir Ahmed Lone was also not knowing this matter that for carrying Charas in the truck Zakir and Irshad would get money. When Nazir Ahmed Lone got knowledge about existence of Charas in the truck, he had neither demanded any amount from Zakir and Irshad for carrying the Charas ahead and nor any kind of deal was made. It is correct to say that on the date when the Charas was loaded in the truck, no kind of conspiracy was made between the accused driver – Nazir Ahmed Lone and other co-accused persons, namely, Zakir and Irshad regarding carrying Charas in the truck and nor any other scheme was made.” 11. On the contrary, Mr. Vishal Sharma, learned DSGI appearing for the respondent though would not dispute the aforesaid position of the statement made by the Intelligence Officer before the trial court, yet would submit that the said facts do not constitute a ground for holding the accused not guilty in the matter. 12. Be that as it may, it is settled position of law as evolved in long line of decisions by the Apex Court on the subject relating to the bail, that there is no straight jacket formula for the use of discretion, yet at the time of deciding the question of “bail or jail” in non-bailable offences, the Court has to utilize its judicial discretion not only as per settled law, but also according to the principles laid down by the Criminal Procedure Code and judicial precedents. A reference here to the judgment of the Apex Court passed in case titled as “Data Ram Singh Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.” reported in 2018 (2) SCC 22 would be relevant herein wherein at paras 1, 2, 4 & 5 following has been observed:- “1. A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. 2. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case. 4. To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be adopted by a judge, while dealing with an application for remanding a suspect or an accused person to police custody or judicial custody. There are several reasons for this including maintaining the dignity of an accused person, howsoever poor that person might be, the requirements of Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact that there is enormous overcrowding in prisons, leading to social and other problems as noticed by this Court in In Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons. 5. There are several reasons for this including maintaining the dignity of an accused person, howsoever poor that person might be, the requirements of Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact that there is enormous overcrowding in prisons, leading to social and other problems as noticed by this Court in In Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons. 5. The historical background of the provision for bail has been elaborately and lucidly explained in a recent decision delivered in Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India, going back to the days of the Magna Carta. In that decision, reference was made to Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, in which it is observed that it was held way back in Nagendra v. King-Emperor, that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. Reference was also made to Emperor v. Hutchinson5 wherein it was observed that grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. The provision for bail is therefore age-old and the liberal interpretation to the provision for bail is almost a century old, going back to colonial days.” 13. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the fundamental principle and object of bail is to seek attendance and appearance of the accused at the trial by a reasonable amount of bail as otherwise prolonged incarceration of the accused in the case would certainly amount to pre-conviction/detention. 14. The contention of the respondent that the petitioner earlier jumped over the bail stands sufficiently explained by the petitioner which has not been denied and disputed by the respondent by any credible and cogent response thereto. 15. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the material on record, the petitioner has been able to carve out a case for grant of bail on the bedrock of parity. As a sequel to above discussions, the application in hand is allowed and the petitioner consequently is admitted to bail subject to the following conditions:- I. Furnishing of personal bond to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. II. The petitioner shall appear before the trial court on every date of hearing unless exempted by the trial court. III. The petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of this Court till the conclusion of the trial unless permitted by the trial court. IV. 50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. II. The petitioner shall appear before the trial court on every date of hearing unless exempted by the trial court. III. The petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of this Court till the conclusion of the trial unless permitted by the trial court. IV. The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the trial court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. V. That in the event, the prosecution collects any material during the period petitioner is on bail that he has influenced the witnesses or tried to intimidate them, the prosecution would be well within its right to move an application before the trial court for cancellation of his bail. 16. Disposed of.