JUDGMENT : Ranjan Sharma, J. Petitioner, Budh Bahadur Singh @ Fauji, has come up before this Court under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’), seeking pre-arrest bail, originating from FIR No. 7 of 2024, dated 12.03.2024, registered against one Shri Dinesh Shahi with Police Station Moorang, District Kinnaur, [H.P.], under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS Act’). 2. The background facts as set up by Ms. Parul Negi, Advocate is that on 12.03.2024 the police party was on patrolling duty with I.O. kit and during such patrolling at 3:00 pm when the police party reached Kharo on NH-05 in Government vehicle, then at 4:00 pm near Raabchic Dhaba, a person was seen walking towards them from hot water spring side, who was carrying a backpack and on seeing the police he turned back towards hot waters. 2(i). It is the case of the bail petitioner that on suspicion the police apprehended the said person who was found perplexed. The identity of such person ultimately came to be Dinesh Shahi son of Ali Bahadur Shabi resident of Nepal and at present resident of Village and Post Office Sangla, Tehsil Sangla, District Kinnaur, [H.P.]. The bag was searched in the presence of the witnesses as per the averments made in the bail petition. On search, the contraband, weighing 01.78 kg [Opium-Afeem] was recovered from Dinesh Shahi, as referred to above. After completing codal formalities the rukka was sent leading to the registration of the FIR against Dinesh Shahi referred to above. 2(ii). In this background, the case set up by the bail petitioner [Budh Bahadur Singh] is that, during investigation, the police visited the house of the bail petitioner on 16.03.2024 but since the bail petitioner was not present, therefore, the brother and neighbor of the bail petitioner was asked to inform about the same. It is also averred in para No.4, 5 and 6 of the bail petition that the bail petitioner [Budh Bahadur Singh] has no connection or no concern with the alleged recovery of contraband from the main accused [Dinesh Shahi], as referred to above. It is further stated that the bail petitioner is being sought to be implicated falsely, for reasons known to the prime accused [Dinesh Shahi], referred to above. It is further stated that the bail petitioner is being sought to be implicated falsely, for reasons known to the prime accused [Dinesh Shahi], referred to above. It is further stated that the bail petitioner has lost his 21 years old son, recently, for which he had gone for completing the rituals and the allegations/disclosures made by Dinesh Shahi [main accused] were baseless. In the bail petition and para No.7 to 10, the bail petitioner [Budh Bahadur Singh] has submitted the requisite undertakings that the bail petitioner shall join the investigation, shall not tamper with the witnesses or the evidence and shall not cause any inducement, threat or promise to any person or persons, connected with the case whatsoever. 3. The instant bail petition [Cr.MP(M) No.545 of 2024] was listed before this Hon’ble Court on 20.03.2024 when, this Court asked the respondent/State authorities to file the status report [taken on record]. 3(i). The status report was filed by the State authorities, reveal that the main accused is Dinesh Shahi, who had been resorted in illegal trafficking of opium which is borne out from the status report. The status report further reveals that the main accused [Dinesh Shahi], in collaboration with one Tilak Chander Chanara, had been resorting to such activities, who were arrested by the police also. The status report further reveals that the police has issued a notice mandated under Sections 40/41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, directing the bail petitioner to join the investigation. The status report further reveals that the bail petitioner has been directed by the police/State authorities to join the investigation, only on the ground that, at this stage, one of the accused-Tilak Chander Chanara had allegedly called/contacted the bail petitioner from his mobile between 10.03.2024 to 13.03.2024. The status report further reveals that the bail petitioner was called for investigation as his name was disclosed by the subsequent accused [Tilak Chander Chanara], as referred to above. 4. Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Dhumal and Ms. Parul Negi, learned counsel(s) for the petitioner and Mr. J.K. Sharma, Learned Additional Advocate General for the Respondent-State. 5. The status report further reveals that the bail petitioner was called for investigation as his name was disclosed by the subsequent accused [Tilak Chander Chanara], as referred to above. 4. Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Dhumal and Ms. Parul Negi, learned counsel(s) for the petitioner and Mr. J.K. Sharma, Learned Additional Advocate General for the Respondent-State. 5. In order to appreciate the claim of the bail petitioner and the directions so raised in the status report, it is relevant to take note of the provisions of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 which reads as under:- Section 438 Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest: (1). Where any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this section that in the event of such arrest he shall be released on bail; and that Court may, after taking into consideration, inter-alia, the following factors, namely:- (i) the nature and gravity of the accusation; (ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; (iii) the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; and (iv) where the accusation has been made with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so arrested, either reject the application forthwith or issue an interim order for the grant of anticipatory bail; Provided that, where the High Court or as the case may be, the Court of Session, has not passed any interim order under this Sub-Section or has rejected the application for grant of anticipatory bail, it shall be open to an officer in-charge of a police station to arrest, without warrant the applicant on the basis of the accusation apprehended in such application. (1A) Where the Court grants an interim order under Sub-Section (1), it shall forthwith cause a notice being not less than seven days notice, together with a copy of such order to be served on the Public Prosecutor and the Superintendent of Police, with a view to give the Public Prosecutor a reasonable opportunity of being heard when the application shall be finally heard by the Court. (1B) The presence of the applicant seeking anticipatory bail shall be obligatory at the time of final hearing of the application and passing of final order by the Court, if on an application made to it by the Public Prosecutor, the Court considers such presence necessary in the interest of justice. (2) When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction under subsection (1), it may include such conditions in such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may thinks fit, including- (i) a condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) a condition that the person 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 Court or to any police officer; (iii) a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; (iv) such other condition as may be imposed under Sub -Section (3) of section 437, as if the bail were granted under that section. (3) If such person is thereafter arrested without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station on such accusation, and is prepared either at the time of arrest or at any time while in the custody of such officer to give bail, he shall be released on bail, and if a Magistrate taking cognizance of such offence decides that a warrant should issue in the first instance against that person, he shall issue a bailable warrant in conformity with the direction of the Court under Sub-Section (1). (4) Nothing in this section shall apply to any case involving the arrest of any person on accusation of having committed an offence under sub-section (3) of section 376 or section 376 AB or section 376DA or section 376DB of the Indian Penal Code. 18. (4) Nothing in this section shall apply to any case involving the arrest of any person on accusation of having committed an offence under sub-section (3) of section 376 or section 376 AB or section 376DA or section 376DB of the Indian Penal Code. 18. Punishment for contravention in relation to opium poppy and opium: Whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of licence granted thereunder, cultivates the opium poppy or produces, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter-State, exports inter-State or uses opium shall be punishable, (a) where the contravention involves small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both; (b) where the contravention involves commercial quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees which may extend to two lakh rupees: Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees; (c) in any other case, with rigorous imprisonment which may extend to ten years and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees. Section 37 of the N D P S Act, 1985: 37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) (a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable; (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27 A and also for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless : (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force, on granting of bail. 6. In the background of the statutory provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C and Sections 18 and 37(1)(a) of the NDPS Act, as referred to above, the offences punishable under NDPS Act are cognizable and the claim of a suspect- accused for pre-arrest bail, even under NDPS Act, is to be examined within the parameters prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure and also the broad parameters mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, regulating bail anticipatory bail (under Section 438) in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia versus State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565 , Ram Govind Upadhyay versus Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 598 ; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar versus Rajesh Ranjan, (2004)7 SCC 528 ; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashish Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 ; reiterated in P. Chidambaram versus Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24 , mandating that the anticipatory bail is to be granted as an exception where the case alleged is frivolous or groundless and incase the prima facie or reasonable grounds lead to believe or point towards accusation then, the refusal of anticipatory bail does not amounts to denial of Article 21 of the Constitution of India; Sushila Aggarwal versus State-NCT Delhi, (2020) 5 SCC 01 ; CBI versus Santosh Karnani (2023) 6 SCALE 250 ; which have been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana versus Dharamraj, 2023 SCC Online SC 1085, which read as under: (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; (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 and (viii). Danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. 7. In normal parlance, the principle of law is that bail is a rule and jail is an exception. Danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. 7. In normal parlance, the principle of law is that bail is a rule and jail is an exception. However, this Court is conscious of the fact that the power under Section 438 is an extraordinary power and the same has to be exercised sparingly and the privilege of pre-arrest bail is to be to be granted in exceptional cases. It is trite law that anticipatory bail is not be granted as a rule and cannot be claimed as of right. It is trite law that while considering the prayer for bail {pre-arrest bail or regular bail], factum of prolonged pre-conviction incarceration is also to be taken into account. While considering the prayer for bail, the balance has to be carved out between the liberty of an accused vis-à-vis the societal interest, including the danger of the justice being thwarted in case the bail is granted. 8. Anticipatory bail is to be granted, only if, exceptional circumstances exist and the denial of pre-arrest would amount to denial of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The claim for anticipatory bail may carry weight, in case, the accusation is frivolous and groundless with the object of either injuring or humiliating or where a person has falsely been roped in the crime. Even such a claim is to be tested in the background of the self-imposed restrains or the broad parameters mandated by law, as referred to hereinabove). On the other hand, anticipatory bail is not to be granted as of right, when, there is a prima facie case or reasonable grounds exist pointing out towards accusation. 9. This Court is also conscious of the fact that as per the mandate of law, in Criminal Appeal No 3840 of 2023, titled as Saumya Churasia versus Directorate of Enforcement, decided on 14.12.2023, while considering the prayer for bail, the Court is not required to weigh the evidence collected by the Investigating Agency meticulously, nonetheless, the Court should keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of evidence collected in support thereof, the severity of punishment prescribed for alleged offences, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused during trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the large interests of the public/state. In this background, while testing the claim for bail, the Court is required to form a prima-facie opinion in the context of the broad-parameters referred to above, without delving into the evidence on merits, as it may tend to prejudice the rights of the accused as well as the prosecution. 10. Even a suspect or an accused under NDPS Act does not have any vested right or an automatic claim for pre-arrest bail or regular bail, merely on the ground, that the quantity of contraband, allegedly involved, is either small or intermediate. However, while considering the prayer for bail, even in offences under the NDPS, relating to small or intermediate quantity, still the claim is required to be tested in the backdrop of Section(s) 438 or 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure {herein, Cr.P.C.}, and also in the context of the broad parameters mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Paras 6 to 9 referred to above. Merely because a bail petitioner is implicated for accusation relating to either small or intermediate quantity of contraband cannot ipso facto confer a right of bail on such a suspect or accused. The Courts cannot feign ignorance that it is the modus operandi of Drug Mafia’s or Master-minds or King Pins of such trade, who primarily act through persons who are either indigent or poor or are unemployed or have unwarranted and unexpected financial expectations or who are suffers of financial liability etc., by initially alluring them to act as small peddlers towards trafficking of small and intermediate quantity of contraband, with the pre-designed calculation that they may have an easy escape, even if they are apprehended in view of the quantity being small or intermediate. Day in and day out, the instances are endlessly flowing where, these peddlers have turned out to be habitual offenders, being involved in numerous cases under NDPS and under other Statutes, which of course, becomes an important ingredient while examining claim for bail. It is high time that the drug trafficking and menace needs to be dealt with iron hands. Permitting drug peddlers or persons, against whom there is a prima facie case or reasonable grounds of being involvement in drug menace to be enlargement on bail ipso facto, merely because quantity of contraband involved is either small or intermediate, will certainly defeat the object of NDPS Act and the rule of law. Permitting drug peddlers or persons, against whom there is a prima facie case or reasonable grounds of being involvement in drug menace to be enlargement on bail ipso facto, merely because quantity of contraband involved is either small or intermediate, will certainly defeat the object of NDPS Act and the rule of law. Enlarging such persons on bail {pre-arrest or regular}, merely because the quantity allegedly involved is small or intermediate, despite there being a prima facie case or reasonable ground of involvement shall result in adding wings to their flight and giving leverage to such suspect-accused to continue, expand and flourish in inhumane trade and activities. Such persons are bent upon, not only to destroy the society at large but are exploiting the youth in the prime of their life, by depriving them of their youth, by curtailing fundamental right to live with dignity, by adversely affecting the health of such a person-who falls prey to such illegal activities. 11. In the above backdrop, the general principle is that when, a bail petitioner approaches a Court for bail {pre-arrest or regular bail} under NDPS Act and a Court forms a prima facie opinion on the basis of available material, that there is a prima facie case or reasonable grounds pointing towards the accusation of an offence, be it relating to a small or intermediate quantity of contraband therefore, such an accused has neither any automatic right nor can the privilege of bail be extended as a rule. The exception to this principle is that the enlargement on bail {be it relates to either small or intermediate quantity of contraband} can be extended, on case to case basis, after taking into account that the prima facie accusation does not points out towards involvement and the past conduct being unblemished coupled with the fact that such bail applicant fulfils the broad parameters mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to above. 12. While dealing with the issue relating to an intermediate quantity of contraband of Heroin (charas), which was not recovered from petitioner, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sami Ullaha versus Superintendent, Narcotic Central Bureau, (2008) 16 SCC 471 has held as under: 3. Before, however, we advert to the said question, we may notice the factual matrix involved in the matter. 12. While dealing with the issue relating to an intermediate quantity of contraband of Heroin (charas), which was not recovered from petitioner, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sami Ullaha versus Superintendent, Narcotic Central Bureau, (2008) 16 SCC 471 has held as under: 3. Before, however, we advert to the said question, we may notice the factual matrix involved in the matter. On or about 14.08.2004, the luggage of two persons, viz., Abdul Munaf and Zahid Hussain who were traveling in a bus were searched and allegedly contraband weighing 2 kgs. was recovered. A purported statement was made by the said accused persons that the said contraband (heroin) was meant to be delivered to the appellant. Nothing was recovered from him. Apart from the said statements of the said accused persons, no other material is available on record to sustain a charge against him. On the basis of the said statement, the appellant was arrested on 15.08.2004. Allegedly, a statement was made by him in terms of Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “the Act”). Appellant contends that he was tortured and the statement was obtained forcibly from him on some blank documents. He later on retracted there from. Indisputably, the seized articles were sent for chemical examination to the Government Opium and Alkaloid Works, Neemuch. A report was sent to the investigating officer on 23.09.2004 stating that the sample did not contain any contraband substance. Appellant thereafter filed an application for discharge. The prosecution moved the court for sending the substance 2 allegedly recovered from the co-accused persons for its examination by the Central Revenue Control Laboratory, New Delhi. It was rejected by the court opining that there was no provision in the Act for sending the sample to another laboratory. The court, however, did not pass an order of discharge in favour of the appellant but released him on bail, stating: “Accordingly, as mentioned above, there is no ground that by accepting the application of the complainant and order be passed for sending the second sample for examination to another laboratory. If the investigating officer so desires, then in accordance with the ruling expounded as above, he is free to send the second sample to any of the laboratories for its examination at his own level. If the investigating officer so desires, then in accordance with the ruling expounded as above, he is free to send the second sample to any of the laboratories for its examination at his own level. On the basis of the abovementioned observations, the application of the complainant is rejected.” However, even a distinction is made as regards grant of bail in relation to a commercial quantity and a small quantity. Commercial quantity has been defined in Section 2(vii-a) of the Act to mean “any quantity greater than the quantity specified by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette”. 12. We will advert to the question of the definition of “Chemical Examiner” a little later. The question, however, as to whether the contraband found came within the purview of the commercial quantity within the meaning of Section 2(vii-a) or not is one of the factors which should be taken into consideration by the courts in the matter of grant or refusal to grant bail. Even, according to the Central Revenue Control Laboratory, New Delhi, only 2.6% of the sample sent was found to be containing heroin. Small quantity in terms of the notification issued under Sections 2(vii-a) and 2(xxiii-a) is as under: Sl. No. Name of Narcotic drug or psychotropic substance Non-proprietary Chemical [International Name (INN)] Small quantity Commercial quantity 77. Morphine Morphine 5 gm 250 gm The quantity, thus, alleged to have been recovered from the co-accused persons could be said to be intermediate quantity and, thus, the rigours of the provisions of Section 37 of the Act relating to grant of bail may not be justified. 13. In Ouseph alias Thankachan v. State of Kerala [ (2004) 4 SCC 446 ], this Court held: “8. The question to be considered by us is whether the psychotropic substance was in a small quantity and if so, whether it was intended for personal consumption. The words 'small quantity' have been specified by the Central Government by the notification dated 23-7-1996. Learned Counsel for the State has brought to our notice that as per the said notification small quantity has been specified as 1 gram. If so, the quantity recovered from the appellant is far below the limit of small quantity specified in the notification issued by the Central Government. It is admitted that each ampoule contained only 2 ml and each ml contains only 3 mg. If so, the quantity recovered from the appellant is far below the limit of small quantity specified in the notification issued by the Central Government. It is admitted that each ampoule contained only 2 ml and each ml contains only 3 mg. This means the total quantity found in the possession of the appellant was only 66 mg. This is less than 1/10th of the limit of small quantity specified under the notification. *** *** *** 11. On account of the aforesaid fact situation, we are inclined to believe that the small quantity of buprenorphine (Tidigesic) was in the possession of the appellant for his personal consumption and, therefore, the offence committed by him would fall under Section 27 of the NDPS Act.” 12(i). In State of West Bengal versus Rakesh Singh alias Rakesh Kumar Singh 2022 SCC Online SC 828, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, has observed asunder: 20. After having considered the rival submissions, the High Court formed the opinion that the restriction of Section 37 NDPS Act would not apply to this case and the respondent, who was in custody since 23.02.2021, qualified for grant of bail with stringent conditions. Accordingly, the High Court ordered release of the accused-respondent on bail with heightened conditions like: (a) he would furnish a bond in the sum of rupees one lakh with four sureties of rupees fifty thousand each, two of whom must be local persons; (b) he shall report to the Officer-in Charge of the concerned police station once in a week; (c) he would not travel outside the State of West Bengal without prior leave of the Trial Court; and (d) he would surrender his passport before the Trial Court immediately. Having regard to the submissions made in this case, we may take note of the relevant part of the discussion and reasoning of the High Court as under: - “4. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties. We have also perused the material in the memo of evidence filed on behalf of the State. 5. Certain things are clear. Firstly, there was no recovery of contraband items from the physical possession of the petitioner. Nothing was recovered from the person of the petitioner or any place over which the petitioner had exclusive control. We have also perused the material in the memo of evidence filed on behalf of the State. 5. Certain things are clear. Firstly, there was no recovery of contraband items from the physical possession of the petitioner. Nothing was recovered from the person of the petitioner or any place over which the petitioner had exclusive control. We are conscious that mere non-recovery of contraband from a person’s possession may not per se dilute the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 6. However, even assuming that the petitioner had dominion or control over the contraband in question, admittedly intermediate quantity (76 gms) of cocaine was seized. It was urged on behalf of the State that the statements of witnesses would indicate that the petitioner was a regular purchaser of contraband items. However, the fact remains that in the present case only 76 gms of cocaine is involved. As observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sami Ullaha (Supra), where intermediate quantity of narcotics is involved, it may not be justified to apply the rigours of the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act relating to grant of bail. 53. Once the veracity of prosecution case against the respondent is in serious doubt, further analysis on the other factors about financing the drug trafficking and harbouring of offender need not be undertaken because, when the story of planting of contraband is removed out of consideration, all other factors by which respondent is sought to be connected with such alleged planting could only be regarded as false and fanciful, at least at this stage. 54. Hence, suffice it to observe for the present purpose that in the given set of facts and circumstances, the High Court has rightly found that applicability of Section 27A NDPS Act is seriously questionable in this case. That being the position; and there being otherwise no recovery from the respondent and the quantity in question being also intermediate quantity, the rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act do not apply to the present case.” 12(ii) Likewise, this Court in case titled Roshan Lal versus State of Himachal Pradesh in Cr.MP(M) No.307 of 2024 decided on 04.03.2024, has held as under: 13(i). Admittedly, in the present case, as per the Status Report filed by the State Authorities, the alleged contraband was recovered from Hem Raj-accused, who had kept it in his bag. 13(ii). Admittedly, in the present case, as per the Status Report filed by the State Authorities, the alleged contraband was recovered from Hem Raj-accused, who had kept it in his bag. 13(ii). No alleged recovery of contraband was made from the bail petitioner (Roshan Lal) herein and the bail petitioner was nowhere involved and had no connection with the alleged offence. 15. Even the status Report does not point out anything adverse regarding past conductor blemished criminal history/records of the bail petitioner. While dealing with a matter, relating to an intermediate quantity of contraband coupled with the fact that the antecedents and past conduct was satisfactory the Coordinate Bench of this Court enlarged the accused on bail, in Hari versus State of Himachal Pradesh, 2023 SCC Online HP 142, decided on 21st February, 2023, this Court held as under: 8. It can also be noticed from the facts of the case that there is no allegation of petitioner involving himself in similar offences repeatedly. No criminal history has been attributed to him. Petitioner is a young man of 25 years. His further pre-trial incarceration will not serve any fruitful purpose. 15(i). Likewise, in the case of Rohit Versus State of Himachal Pradesh, 2023 SCC Online HP 315, decided on 11.04.2023 while granting the bail, this Court has held as under: 4. This Court is of the considered view that as the alleged recovery from the petitioners is of the intermediate quantity and further taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners are stated to be having no previous criminal history of being indulged in offences relatable to NDPS Act, it will be in the interest of justice in case the petitioners are allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail. 13. In the entirety of the facts and circumstances referred to above, coupled with the statutory provisions of Section 438 and 18 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, and the mandate of law, as referred to above, this Court is of the considered view, that the interim protection needs to be granted to the petitioner in the instant proceedings, for the following reasons:- 13(i). In the status report, the State Authorities/Police has failed to point out any prima facie case or reasonable grounds to believe that there is any accusation against the bail petitioner [Budh Bahadur Singh], in the FIR No.7 of 2024 [which was against Dinesh Shahi] as on day, as referred to above. 13(ii). Even the status report dated 20.03.2024 filed by the State Authorities/police, also indicate that the bail petitioner has only been issued a notice under Section 41/41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, asking him to join the investigation, so as to have further progress and to arrive at the linkage or connection in the matter, if any. 13(iii). The status report indicates that there is no material on record to show that the bail petitioner has any connection or involvement with the main accused [Dinesh Shahi] and co-accused [Tilak Chander Chanara], and therefore, the prima facie accusation becomes highly doubtful. 13(iv). While considering the instant bail petition, this Court is conscious of the fact that a balance has to be carved out between the liberty of the bail petitioner -accused vis-à-vis the societal interests at large. 13(v). The status report does not reveal or points out any adversarial circumstance, reflecting that there is likely of the bail petitioner fleeing from the limits of the police station or the State. The status report also does not point out any apprehension or material, reflecting likelihood of the bail petitioner tampering with the evidence or the witnesses. 13(vi). At this stage, even the status report does not point any out adversarial antecedents/past criminal history, against the bail petitioner. 13(vii). In the status report, the State Authorities/police has come up with the plea that the police has only issued a notice directing the bail petitioner to join the investigation, and the apprehension of petitioner of being arrested, is misconceived and the petition is premature. In this context, this Court is of the considered view that there is neither any prima facie case nor any reasonable grounds to sustain the accusation. Moreover, the alleged contraband does not relate to the bail petitioner, in any manner. Further, no recovery has been made from the bail petitioner in relation to the alleged FIR which was registered against another accused, namely, Dinesh Shahi. Moreover, the alleged contraband does not relate to the bail petitioner, in any manner. Further, no recovery has been made from the bail petitioner in relation to the alleged FIR which was registered against another accused, namely, Dinesh Shahi. In peculiar facts of this case, keeping in view, the fact that the bail petitioner has already given an undertaking that the bail petitioner shall join the investigation, as and when called, therefore, the ends of justice once be served, in case, the bail petitioner is made to join the investigation as per his undertaking. 14. In these circumstances, the instant bail petition is allowed. In the event of the arrest of the petitioner, the State Authorities/Police, shall release the bail petitioner on bail, subject to following conditions:- (i) In the event of the arrest of the petitioner, he shall be released on bail on execution of his personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, with one surety, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of Station House Officer, Police Station Moorang, District Kinnaur, [H.P.]; (ii) The petitioner shall report at Police Station Moorang, District Kinnaur, [H.P.]/concerned Investigating Officer, on 23.03.2024 at 2:00 p.m. (iii) The petitioner shall disclose his functional E-Mail IDs/WhatsApp number and that of his surety to the SHO/IO concerned; (iv) The petitioner shall not hinder the smooth flow of the investigation and shall join the investigation, on each and every date, as and when called, by the Investigating Agency; (v) The petitioner shall not jump over the bail and also shall not leave the country without prior information of the Court; (vi) That the petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence not hamper the investigation of the case in any manner; (vii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case or the witnesses; (viii) The petitioner shall neither involve himself nor shall be abet the commission of any offence. The involvement or abetting in any offence, shall entail cancellation of pre-arrest bail, automatically; (ix) It is clarified that violation of any of the conditions imposed hereinabove shall entail cancellation of bail automatically; and (x) The respondent is at liberty to move this Court for modification or cancellation of bail, if circumstances, so necessitate or in case of violation of any of the conditions mandated herein. 15. 15. Petitioner is permitted to produce/use copy of this order, downloaded from the web-page of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, before the authorities concerned, and the said authorities shall not insist for production of a certified copy, but if required, may verify passing of order from Website of the High Court. 16. Any observations made hereinabove, shall not be construed in any manner as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and these observations are made only, for the disposal of the instant bail application. As aforesaid the instant petition as well as miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.