JUDGMENT : RANJAN SHARMA, J. Bail petitioner [Sonu], has come up before this Court, seeking regular bail, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure hereinafter (referred to as CrPC). originating from the FIR No. 152 of 2023 dated 20.11.2023, registered at Police Station Gagret, District Una [H.P.], under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (referred to as the NDPS Act). FACTUAL MATRIX 2. Case set up by Mr. N.K. Thakur, Learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Karanveer Singh, Advocate, is that on 20.11.2023, while the police party was on patrolling in Banne Di Hatti area on the main road to Gagret near Industrial Area, Ambota, they received a secret information at 3:50 pm that a person sitting on the driver seat in vehicle was carrying huge quantity of con traband, beneath the driver’s seat. On reaching, the spot at about 5:15 pm, the police, on disclosure of their identity, found the bail petitioner [Sonu] to be sitting on the driver’s seat. Thereafter, vehicle was searched and a polythene bag was found, containing two other plastic bags, one containing red coloured plastic polythene containing yellowish wet material and in the other transparent plastic envelop containing pink coloured powder in the second bag. On weighing the yellowish material was found to be Chitta, weighing 83.28 gms and the other pink powder was found to be Smack/Heroin weighing 94.72 gms, thus, total contraband which was recovered was 173.48 gms, from the bail petitioner. 2(i). It is submitted by Mr. N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate, is that the bail petitioner is innocent person and he has not committed any offence, rather a false case has been planned on him. It is further averred in the bail petition that the bail petitioner was going to Maa Chintpurni Temple and on the way a small altercation took place with the police and therefore, he was framed in the false case. It is further averred that the bail petitioner has never been involved in any criminal case in the past. It is further averred that the investigation is complete and the challan has been presented in the Court and the bail petitioner has given an undertaking, that he shall associate with the police and shall cooperate with the trial and shall abide by all such directions, as may be imposed by this Court. 2(ii). It is further averred that the investigation is complete and the challan has been presented in the Court and the bail petitioner has given an undertaking, that he shall associate with the police and shall cooperate with the trial and shall abide by all such directions, as may be imposed by this Court. 2(ii). After registration of FIR No.152/2023 dated 20.11.2023, the bail petitioner was arrested on 20.11.2023. After his arrest, the bail petitioner moved an application for bail vide Bail Application Registration No.47/2024 on 12.01.2024, before the Learned Special Judge (1), Una, District Una [H.P.] but the bail application was rejected on 20.02.2024, vide [Annexure P-1], annexed with the case records. While rejecting the bail application, the Learned Special Judge (1), Una, District Una, [H.P.] declined the bail, in view of the discussion, made in Para No.8 of the order, which reads as under:- “In the present case, there are serious allegations against t he applicant having in possession of heroin to the tune of 178 gms which though less than commercial quantity but touching the commercial quantity i.e. 250 gms. Further, allegation against him is that he is in search of customers in the State of HP to sell the same and to have purchased the same from an unknown person at Haryana. When all factors are taken into consideration together, I am of the considered view that if applicant is released on bail, he may intimidate the witnesses, tamper with the prosecution evidence and may effect the investigation. Hence, I deem it not appropriate to release the applicant on bail at this stge. Hence, the application filed by the applicant being merit-less is dismissed. The observations made hereinabove shall have no bearing on merits of the case and are only for disposal of the present bail application. File after its due completion be tagged with main case file.” 2(iii). Consequent upon the rejection of bail by the Learned Trial Court on 20.02.2024 [Annexure P-1], the petitioner has come up before this Court in the instant petition, Cr.MP(M) No.322 of 2024, praying for grant of regular bail. STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES 3. Upon listing of the case, before this Court, on 29.02.2024, this Court directed the State Authorities to file the Status Report. The State Authorities filed the Status Report dated 11.03.2024 on the Instructions of SHO, Police Station Gagret, District Una. STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES 3. Upon listing of the case, before this Court, on 29.02.2024, this Court directed the State Authorities to file the Status Report. The State Authorities filed the Status Report dated 11.03.2024 on the Instructions of SHO, Police Station Gagret, District Una. Thereafter, the fresh Status Report dated 08.04.2024 was filed, on instructions of Incharge, Police Station Gagret, District Una and the copy of fresh Status Report was furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioner and thereafter, with the consent of parties, the matter was finally heard and the judgment was reserved by this Court. 3(i). A perusal of the Status Reports dated 11.03.2024 and 08.04.2024, reveal that the same are based on para materia averments. 3(ii). As per the Status Report(s), the prosecution story is that, on 20.11.2023 while the police party was on patrolling, near Banne Di Hatti, nearby the industrial area, Ambota on the Gagret road, a secret information was received by the police party at about 3:50 pm, to the effect that a vehicle bearing registration No.RJ-32CA-8826, is parked near industrial area and the person, sitting in the driver’s seat, has kept huge contraband below the driver’s seat in the aforesaid vehicle. Thereafter, the police party, reached the spot at about 5:15 pm and thereafter, the aforesaid vehicle bearing registration No.RJ-32CA-8826 was searched. On searching the vehicle, petitioner who was occupying the driver’s seat, admitted that the contraband has been kept below the driver’s seat by him. Accordingly, the contraband was recovered, at the instance of the bail petitioner. The Status Report reveal that the contraband was kept in a polythene, which contained two other plastic polythenes and the aforesaid contraband, was weighed in the presence of the independent witnesses and bail petitioner-accused. The contraband weighing 178 gms [i.e. 83.28 gms and 94.72 gms] was recovered at the instance of the bail petitioner from beneath the driver’s seat, being occupied by the bail petitioner. Status Report reveals that the bail petitioner has acknowledged the recovery, by appending his signatures on the search/recovery memo. 3(iii). The Status Report reveals that during investigation, by ASI Vinod Kumar, the statement of bail petitioner under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded, who stated that on 19.11.2023, he started from his house in Rajasthan towards Anandpur Sahib in Punjab. Status Report reveals that the bail petitioner has acknowledged the recovery, by appending his signatures on the search/recovery memo. 3(iii). The Status Report reveals that during investigation, by ASI Vinod Kumar, the statement of bail petitioner under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded, who stated that on 19.11.2023, he started from his house in Rajasthan towards Anandpur Sahib in Punjab. It has further come on record that on reaching Haryana, he met an unknown person, namely Tidda, from whom, he purchased the contraband weighing 178 gms for Rs.1,00,000/- [Rupees One Lakh], so as to sell it to the customers in Gagret. During investigation, the bail petitioner has admitted that the recovery was made, at his instance by the police and in his presence from the place below the driver’s seat. The status report further reveals that during the investigation, a mobile phone of OPPO make, with dual SIM was recovered by the police. Even the FSL report dated 24.11.2023 have also confirmed the contraband to be heroin and smack, as referred to above. It was averred that investigation is complete and the challan/police report has been presented before the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Una on 10.01.2024 and the matter has now been fixed for consideration of charge on 03.05.2024 by the Court. In this background, the State Authorities and Learned State Counsel has prayed for rejection of the bail application. 4. Heard Mr. N.K. Thakur, Learned Senior Counsel for the bail petitioner and Ms. Ayushi Negi, Learned Deputy Advocate General for the Respondent. 5. In this background, the State Authorities and Learned State Counsel has prayed for rejection of the bail application. 4. Heard Mr. N.K. Thakur, Learned Senior Counsel for the bail petitioner and Ms. Ayushi Negi, Learned Deputy Advocate General for the Respondent. 5. Before dealing with the present application, it is necessary to take note of the provisions of Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 21 of the NDPS Act, under: “ Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: (1) A High Court or Court of Session may direct – (a) that any person accused of an offence and in custody be released on bail, and if the offence is of the nature specified in Sub-Section (3) of section 437, may impose any condition which it considers necessary for the purposes mentioned in that Sub-Section ; (b) that any condition imposed by a Magistrate when releasing any person on bail be set aside or modified; Provided that the High Court or the Court of Session shall, before granting bail to a person who is accused of an offence which is triable exclusively by the Court of Session or which, though not so triable, is punishable with imprisonment for life, give notice of the application for bail to the Public Prosecutor unless it is, for reasons to be recorded in writing, of opinion that it is not practicable to give such notice. Provided further that the High Court or the Court of Session sh all, before granting bail to a person who is accused of an offence triable under sub-section (3) of section 376 or section 376 AB or section 376 DA or section 376 DB of the Indian Penal Code, give notice of the application for bail to the Public Prosecutor within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice of such application. (1A). The presence of the informant or any person authorised by him shall be obligatory at the time of hearing of the application for bail to the person under sub-section (3) of section 376 or section 376AB or section 376 DA or section 376 DB of the Indian Penal Code. (2). A High Court or Court of Session may direct that any person who has been released on bail under this Chapter be arrested and commit him to custody. Section 21 of the NDPS Act reads as under: 21. (2). A High Court or Court of Session may direct that any person who has been released on bail under this Chapter be arrested and commit him to custody. Section 21 of the NDPS Act reads as under: 21. Punishment for contravention in relation to manufactured drugs and preparations- Whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or any ule or order made or condition of licence granted thereunder, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter-State, exports inter-State or uses any manufactured drug or any preparation containing any manufactured drug 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 quantity, lesser than commercial quantity but greater than small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees; (c) 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 but 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. 6. Notably, the claim of the suspect-accused for post arrest bail-regular bail is to be examined/tested within the parameters prescribed of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also the broad para-meters mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court regulating grant of bail 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 bail {anticipatory or regular} is to be granted where the case is frivolous or groundless and no prima facie or reasonable grounds exists which lead to believe or point out towards accusation ; and these parameters for regular bail have been reiterated in Sushila Aggarwal versus State-NCT Delhi, (2020) 5 SCC 01. 6(i). 6(i). While dealing with the case for grant of bail, the three judges bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court, after reiterating the broad parameters has held in Deepak Yadav versus State of Uttar Pradesh, (2022) 8 SCC 559, in Para 25, that the nature of the crime has a huge relevancy, while considering claim for bail. 6(ii). In the case of Ansar Ahmad versus State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 SCC Online SC 974 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court had expanded the horizon of the broad parameters, which are to be primarily taken into account, for considering the claim for regular bail or anticipatory bail as under: 11. Mr. R. Basant, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for one of the private respondents that the Court while granting bail is not required to give detailed reasons touching the merits or de-merits of the prosecution case as any such observation made by the Court in a bail matter can unwittingly cause prejudice to the prosecution or the accused at a later stage. The settled proposition of law, in our considered opinion, is that the order granting bail should reflect the judicial application of mind taking into consideration the well-known parameters including : (i) The nature of the accusation weighing in the gravity and severity of the offence; (ii) The severity of punishment; (iii) The position or status of the accused, i.e. whether the accused can exercise influence on the victim and the witnesses or not; (iv) Likelihood of accused to approach or try to approach the victims/witnesses; (v) Likelihood of accused absconding from proceedings; (vi) Possibility of accused tampering with evidence; (vii) Obstructing or attempting to obstruct the due course of justice; (viii) Possibility of repetition of offence if left out on bail; (ix) The prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge including frivolity of the charge; (x) The different and distinct facts of each case and nature of substantive and corroborative evidence. 12. We hasten to add that there can be several other relevant factors which, depending upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case, would be required to be kept in mind while granting or refusing bail to an accused. 12. We hasten to add that there can be several other relevant factors which, depending upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case, would be required to be kept in mind while granting or refusing bail to an accused. It may be difficult to illustrate all such circumstances, for there cannot be any straight jacket formula for exercising the discretionary jurisdiction vested in a Court under Sections 438 and 439 respectively of the CrPC, as the case may be. 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 439 is an extraordinary power and the same has to be exercised sparingly. It is trite law that while considering the prayer for bail {pre-arrest bail or regular bail], the formation of prima facie opinion is to gathered as to whether reasonable grounds exist pointing towards accusation or whether 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 needs to be tested in the background of the self-imposed restrains or the broad parameters mandated by law, as referred to herein above. 8. 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, though a 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, the 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. 9. 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. 9. In order to examine the claim for bail, under NDPS Act, this Court deems it necessary to have a recap of the Preamble of the Act, which reads as under: “An Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to narcotic drugs, to make stringent provisions for the control and regulation of operations relating to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, to provide for the forfeiture of property derived from, or used in, illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, to implement the provisions of the International Conventions on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances and for matters connected therewith” 9(i). While dealing with the object of the NDPS Act, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Durand Didier, (1990) 1 SCC 95 , has mandated that devastating menace of clandestine smuggling and illegal trafficking in drugs and substances has led to drug addiction amongst a sizeable section of the society, the adolescents and the youth, having a deleterious effect and deadly impact on the society, with the following observations : 19. In view of the above position, it cannot be contended that the prohibited drugs and substances seized from the appellant’s possession were in small quantity so as to bring him only within the mischief of Section 27(a) of the Act. 20. It may not be out of place to mention that even if a person is shown to have been in possession of a small quantity of a narcotic drug or psychotropic sub stance, the burden of proving that it was intended for the personal consumption of such person and not for sale or distribution, lies on such person as per Explanation 2 of Section 27 of the Act. 21. Thirdly, the very fact that the appellant had kept these drugs and substances in many ingeniously devised places of concealment in the camera, shaving tube, torch and shoes would indicate that the appellant was having Fuji knowledge that the drugs he carried were prohibited drugs and that he was having them in violation of law. 22. We, for the above reasons, see no merit in this contention also. 22. We, for the above reasons, see no merit in this contention also. The Trial Court while inflicting the punishment has expressed its view about the drug menace spreading in Gao as follows: "The spreading of the drugs in Gao is becoming day by day a terrible menace which is completely destroying the very fiber of our society being also instrumental in subverting the tender soul of our young generation which is being badly contaminated by such danger in a very alarming provisions calling for severe punishment in case of illegal possession and transportation of drugs meant for personal consumption and eventual trade." 24. With deep concern, we may point out that the organised activities of the underworld and the clandestine smuggling of narcotic drugs and pyschotropic substances into this country and illegal trafficking in such drugs and substances have led to drug addiction among a sizable section of the public, particularly the adolescents and students of both sexes and the menace has assumed serious and alarming proportions in the recent years. Therefore, in order to effectively control and eradicate this proliferating and booming devastating menace, causing deleterious effects and deadly impact on the society as a whole, the Parliament in its wisdom, has made effective provisions by introducing this Act 81 of 1985 specifying mandatory minimum imprisonment and fine….”. 9(ii). In Hira Singh versus Union of India, (2020) 20 SCC 272, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has mandated that the provisions of the NDPS are not to be construed liberal ly but to ensure effective implementation of rule of law so as to achieve the object of enactment {NDPS} by curbing and stringently deal with nefarious activities/illegal trafficking in powerful, dangerous and injurious illegal street drugs under the NDPS Act, as under: 10.3 At this stage, it is required to be noted that illicit drugs are seldom sold in a pure form. They are almost always adulterated or cut with other substance. Caffeine is mixed with heroin , it causes that heroin to vaporize at a lower rate. That could allow users to take the drug faster and get a big punch sooner. Aspirin, crushed tablets, they could have enough powder to amend reversal 34 doses of drugs. Take example of heroin. It is known as powerful and illegal street drug and opiate derived from morphine. This drug can easily be “cut” with a variety of different substances. That could allow users to take the drug faster and get a big punch sooner. Aspirin, crushed tablets, they could have enough powder to amend reversal 34 doses of drugs. Take example of heroin. It is known as powerful and illegal street drug and opiate derived from morphine. This drug can easily be “cut” with a variety of different substances. This means that drug dealer will add other drugs or non-intoxicating substances to the drug so that they can sell more of it at a lesser expense to themselves. Brown-sugar / smack is usually made available in power form. The substances is only about 20% heroin. The heroin is mixed with other substances like chalk powder, zinc oxide, because of these, impurities in the drug, brown-sugar is cheaper but more dangerous . These are only few examples to show and demonstrate that even mixture of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substance is more dangerous. Therefore, what is harmful or injurious is the entire mixture/tablets with neutral substance and Narcotic Drugs or Psychotropic Substances. Therefore, if it is accepted that it is only the actual content by weight of offending drug which is relevant for the purpose of determining whether it would constitute small quantity or commercial quantity, in that case, the object and purpose of enactment of NDPS Act would be frustrated. There may be few punishment for “commercial quantity”. Certainly that would not have been the intention of the legislature….” 10.5 The problem of drug addicts is international and the mafia is working throughout the world . It is a crime against the society and it has to be dealt with iron hands . Use of drugs by the young people in India has increased. The drugs are being used for weakening of the nation. During the British regime control was kept on the traffic of dangerous drugs by enforcing the Opium Act, 1857. The Opium Act, 1875 and the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930. However, with the passage of time and the development in the field of illicit drug traffic and during abuse at national and international level, many deficiencies in the existing laws have come to notice. Therefore, in order to remove such deficiencies and difficulties, there was urgent need for the enactment of a comprehensive legislation on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, which led to enactment of NDPS Act. Therefore, in order to remove such deficiencies and difficulties, there was urgent need for the enactment of a comprehensive legislation on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, which led to enactment of NDPS Act. As observed herein above, the Act is a special law and has a laudable purpose to serve and is intended to combat the menace otherwise bent upon destroying the public health and national health. The guilty must be in and the innocent ones must be out. The punishment part in drug trafficking is an important one but its preventive part is more important. Therefore, prevention of illicit traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 came to be introduced. The aim was to prevent illicit traffic rather than punish after the offence was committed. Therefore, the Courts will have to safeguard the life and liberty of the innocent persons. Therefore, the provisions of NDPS Act are required to be interpreted keeping in mind the object and purpose of NDPS Act ; impact on the society as a whole and the Act is required to be interpreted literally and not liberally which may ultimately frustrate the object, purpose and preamble of the Act ….” 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 either small quantity or an 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 time tested broad parameters mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Paras 6 to 8 referred to above. 11. 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. 11. 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 predesigned 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. 12. It is high time that the drug trafficking and menace needs to be dealt with iron hands. If the available material, points towards the prima facie case or carves out reasonable grounds to believe towards the accusation or culpability or involvement then, in the larger interest of the society the rule of law needs to be strictly enforced and any drug peddler or trafficker or person cannot be permitted to be enlarged on bail, ipso facto, merely because the quantity of contraband involved is either small or intermediate. Enlarging such persons on bail, shall certainly amount to sacrificing the state and of course the nation to such nefarious activists. 12(i). To attain the objective of the NDPS Act and to ensure the rule of law , such persons who are prima facie involved in nefarious drug abuse, such person have no vested right to be enlarged on bail under the pretext of alleged claim of violation of their liberty in Article 21 for the reason, that the alleged assertion of infringement of personal liberty has to succumb to the larger interest of the society, which obviously is at a much higher pedestrian. The plea of seeking bail, claiming violation of personal liberty is a farce when, the liberty of a person ends where liberty of another including the society at large is in sought to be or actually violated, as in this case. 12(ii). Notably, the personal liberty under Article 21 to some extent may carry weight depending on facts of each case but when it comes to safeguarding and protecting the rights and interests of the society, the community and the nation then, in that event, individual right shall have to succumb to societal interests, in terms of the mandate of law, in Ash Mohammad versus Shiv Raj Singh alias Lalla Babu and another (2012) 9 SCC 446, as under: “17. We are absolutely conscious that liberty of a person should not be lightly dealt with, for deprivation of liberty of a person has immense impact on the mind of a person. Incarceration creates a concavity in the personality of an individual. Sometimes it causes a sense of vacuum. Needless to emphasize, the sacrosanctity of liberty is paramount in a civilized society. However, in a democratic body polity which is wedded to Rule of Law an individual is expected to grow within the social restrictions sanctioned by law. The individual liberty is restricted by larger social interest and its deprivation must have due sanction of law. In an orderly society an individual is expected to live with dignity having respect for law and also giving due respect to others’ rights. It is a well accepted principle that the concept of liberty is not in the realm of absolutism but is a restricted one. The cry of the collective for justice, its desire for peace and harmony and its necessity for security cannot be allowed to be trivialized. The life of an individual living in a society governed by Rule of Law has to be regulated and such regulations which are the source in law subserve the social balance and function as a significant instrument for protection of human rights and security of the collective. It is because fundamentally laws are made for their obedience so that every member of the society lives peacefully in a society to achieve his individual as well as social interest. That is why Edmond Burke while discussing about liberty opined, “it is regulated freedom”. 18. It is because fundamentally laws are made for their obedience so that every member of the society lives peacefully in a society to achieve his individual as well as social interest. That is why Edmond Burke while discussing about liberty opined, “it is regulated freedom”. 18. It is also to be kept in mind that individual liberty cannot be accentuated to such an extent or elevated to such a high pedestal which would bring in anarchy or disorder in the society. The prospect of greater justice requires that law and order should prevail in a civilized milieu. True it is, there can be no arithmetical formula f or fixing the parameters in precise exactitude but the adjudication should express not only application of mind but also exercise of jurisdiction on accepted and established norms. Law and order in a society protect the established precepts and see to it that contagious crimes do not become epidemic . In an organized society the concept of liberty basically requires citizens to be responsible and not to disturb the tranquility and safety which every well-meaning person desires. Not for nothing J. Oerter stated: “Personal liberty is the right to act without interference within the limits of the law.” 19. Thus analyzed, it is clear that though liberty is a greatly cherished value in the life of an individual, it is a controlled and restricted one and no element in the society can act in a manner by consequence of which the life or liberty of others is jeopardized, for the rational collective does not countenance an anti-social or anti collective act. 30. We may usefully state that when the citizens are scared to lead a peaceful life and this kind of offences usher in an impediment in establishment of orderly society, the duty of the court becomes more pronounced and the burden is heavy. There should have been proper analysis of the criminal antecedents. Needless to say, imposition of conditions is subsequent to the order admitting an accused to bail. The question should be posed whether the accused deserves to be enlarged on bail or not and only thereafter issue of imposing conditions would arise . We do not deny for a moment that period of custody is a relevant factor but simultaneously the totality of circumsta nces and the criminal antecedents are also to be weighed . The question should be posed whether the accused deserves to be enlarged on bail or not and only thereafter issue of imposing conditions would arise . We do not deny for a moment that period of custody is a relevant factor but simultaneously the totality of circumsta nces and the criminal antecedents are also to be weighed . They are to be weighed in the scale of collective cry and desire. The societal concern has to be kept in view in juxtaposition of individual liberty. Regard being had to the said parameter we are inclined to think that the social concern in the case at hand deserves to be given priority over lifting the restriction of liberty of the accused .” 13. In considered view of this Court, the ipso- facto claim for bail, on the pretext that the quantity 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 nefarious 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. 14. 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. 15 . The exception to this principle is that the enlargement on bail {be it relates to either small quantity 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 a bail applicant fulfils the broad parameters mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to above. BAIL ORDER BY LEARNED TRIAL COURT 16. Before examining the claim for regular bail in the instant case, it would be relevant to take note of the fact that after registrat ion of FIR No.152/2023 dated 20.11.2023, and pursuant to his arrest on 20.11.2023, the bail petitioner had filed an application for bail, before the Learned Special Judge (1), Una, on 12.01.2024, but the same was rejected on 20.02.2024 [Annexure P-1], by a well reason ed order, after dealing with the gravity of alleged offence, the likelihood of the petitioner tampering with the witnesses and the likelihood of his fleeing away from the investigation/trial, being a person not a resident of the State. In view of the reasons, so recorded, in the order, this Court, finds no infirmity, with the aforesaid order and therefore, the order of rejection dated 20.02.2024 [Annexure P-1], passed by the Learned Trial Court, rejecting the plea for enlargement on bail is upheld. ANALYSIS OF CLAIM IN INSTANT CASE 17. Notwithstanding the orders passed by the Learned Trial Court dismissing the plea for bail, this Court proceeds to examine the prayer for bail in instant case. 18. After taking into account the entirety of the facts and circumstances, t he statutory provisions and the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as referred to above, this Court is of the considered view that the bail petitioner, namely Sonu, is not entitled to the benefit of enlargement on bail, at this stage, for the following reason s:- 18(i). The material on record as reflected in the FIR and the Status Report reveals that the prima facie case under Section 21 of the NDPS Act exists, pointing out the accusation/involvement of the bail petitioner. 18(ii). A perusal of the FIR, the Status Report(s) and the statement of the bail petitioner recorded before the Investigating Agencies reveal that the reasonable grounds exist to believe that the bail petitioner had kept the aforesaid contraband weighing 178 gms in total, in the vehicle, below the driver’s seat which was being occupied by the bail petitioner. The contraband was recovered from beneath the driver’s seat of the vehicle by the police at the instance of bail petitioner. The contraband was recovered from beneath the driver’s seat of the vehicle by the police at the instance of bail petitioner. Even the bail petitioner has acknowledged that he purchased the contraband from an unknown person, namely Tidda who hails from Haryana, for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- [Rupees One Lakh], so as to sell it to his customers near Gagret area, in Himachal Pradesh i.e. place of occurrence. Moreover, the bail petitioner has also acknowledged the recovery of the contraband by signing the recovery memo. The bail petitioner has further admitted that he had concealed the aforesaid contraband by wrapping the same in the polythene which was recovered by the police. In the above background, once the alleged contraband of 178 gms was recovered by the police from the possession of the bail petitioner and the bail petitioner has resorted to Inter-State Import of contraband from Haryana to Himachal Pradesh and had intention of selling it to his customers in Gagret [Himachal Pradesh], therefore, in considered view of this Court, the prima facie accusation points out towards the involvement of the bail petitioner under Section 21 of the Act. 18(iii). Status Report reveals that the police has recovered 178 gms of contraband [i.e. 83.28 gms and 94.72 gms of heroin/smack] from the bail petitioner. As per the schedule to the NDPS Act, the small quantity of heroin starts from 5 gms and the commercial quantity starts from 250 gms. The recovery of 178 gms of heroin/smack is 35 times higher than the limits for the small quantity. Notably, the gravity of recovered contraband [35 times higher] and dangerousity of the contraband of heroin/smack, is such that even a pinch of one or two grams of heroin/smack is sufficient, to make a person repulsive, to the aforesaid drug. Even one gram or such like intake of heroin, may have killing instinct, which may cause death of a person. While dealing with the gravity and severity of the accusation of the heroin/chitta/smack, this Court has declined the bail, in similar situations, in Cr.MP(M) No.273/2024, titled as Davinder Singh @ Chhinda versus State of Himachal Pradesh, as under:- “17(v). Now this Court proceeds to examine the gravity and severity of the accusation, offence against the bail petitioner. While dealing with the gravity and severity of the accusation of the heroin/chitta/smack, this Court has declined the bail, in similar situations, in Cr.MP(M) No.273/2024, titled as Davinder Singh @ Chhinda versus State of Himachal Pradesh, as under:- “17(v). Now this Court proceeds to examine the gravity and severity of the accusation, offence against the bail petitioner. In the present case, it is the bail petitioner, who managed the entire show leading towards the sale, purchase, transport and inter-State import of the alleged contraband i.e. the heroin/chitta [weighting 49.03 gms] i.e. 39.70 gms and 9.33 gms was recovered by the Police from two persons [Rishab Sehgal and Anish Sonker], who were sent to Delhi to mee t the Nigerian, at the behest of the bail petitioner, as referred to above. In terms of the NDPS Act and Schedule to the Act, any narcotic drug or psychotropic substances is categorized into small and commercial quantity. By interpretative process, any quantity which exceeds the specification(s) for “Smaller Quantity” but remains below the limit for “Commercial Quantity” has been categorized as “Intermediate Quantity”. As per the Act and Schedule thereto, in case of Heroin/Chitta, the quantity upto 5 gms falls within “Small Quantity’ and quantity exceeding 5 gms to below 249 gms comes within the ambit of “Intermediate Quantity”. In the instant case, the bail petitioner was involved in more than 49.03 gms of Heroin/Chitta, which is nine times more than the maximum prescribed limit for smaller quantity , for which the punishment stretches over to rigorous imprisonment for a period upto 10 years or with fine. Notably, the gravity of this street drug [heroin/chitta weighing 49.03 gms], is much more than the offences relating to murder, culpable homicide, rape, grievous hurt etc., for the reason, that in the case of rape or murder or culpable homicide or grievous hurt etc., it can have adversarial and killing instinct on countable persons; but the harmful, injurious and dangerousity of heroin/chitta is more graver and its culpability is writ large. In view of the gravity of the alleged offence, as explained in case of Hira Singh [supra] coupled with the fact that it is the modus operandi of these persons, that they resort to peddling in small or intermediate quantity of contraband, hoping that the Court(s) liberally construe the alleged involvement in small or intermediate quantity for purpose of bail. In view of the gravity of the alleged offence, as explained in case of Hira Singh [supra] coupled with the fact that it is the modus operandi of these persons, that they resort to peddling in small or intermediate quantity of contraband, hoping that the Court(s) liberally construe the alleged involvement in small or intermediate quantity for purpose of bail. Merely because the quantity allegedly involved is “Intermediate Quantity {49.03 grms of Heroin/ Chitta}” the same shall ipso facto cannot confer a right or leverage or license for claiming or granting bail and the rule of law cannot be permitted to be scuttled, as in this case. Such nefarious-illegal drug trafficking and drug peddling and trading needs to be strictly dealt with and curbed, so that in coming times an uncontrollable adversial situation may not arise; when, one may have to repent later.” Accordingly, keeping in mind the gravity and severity of the alleged offence and the adversial societal interests, at large, this Court refrains from extending the concession of bail, in the instant case to the bail petitioner at this stage. 18(iv). Enlargement on bail, is likelihood to give rise to similar offence(s) being repeated by the bail petitioner, which shall certainly cause further damage and exploitation to the society at large. 18(v). The grant of bail shall certainly lead to the cause of justice being thwarted by the bail petitioner by making the youth, unemployed or poor persons aspiring for income-financial needs and others to fall prey to such nefarious activities, by resorting to Inter-State Import and sale of such drugs in the State. 18(vi). The bail petitioner [Sonu], is not entitled to be enlarged on bail, at this stage, for the reason that the Challan stands filed before the Learned Trial Court, and the matter has been fixed for Consideration of charge on 03.05.2024. In these circumstances, once the trial is about to begin, therefore, enlargement on bail shall give rise to every likelihood that the bail petitioner may tamper with the evidence or the witnesses and he may cause any inducement, threat or promise to the witnesses or other person(s) acquainted with the facts of the instant case. In these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. 18(vii). In these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. 18(vii). The plea of the bail petitioner that he has indulged in such illegal activity of Inter-State Import and sale of heroin/smack, so as to repay the car loan of his wife, expeditiously cannot be the ground for enlarging him on bail, at this stage, when, the grant of bail is likely to adversely affecting the trial as the bail petitioner is a resident of Rajasthan i.e. outside the State of Himachal Pradesh. Therefore, there is every likelihood of the bail petitioner fleeing from the justice by evading the trial also. 19. In view of the above discussion, and in the peculiar facts of the instant case, the prayer of the petitioner [Sonu], for enlargement on bail, at this stage, is without merit; and the same is accordingly, dismissed. 20. As a sequel to the rejection of bail, this Court, directs the petitioner to surrender before the police and the bail bonds/surety bonds executed in pursuance to the order dated 16.03.2024 [interim bail] shall stand cancelled. In case, the petitioner fails to surrender, the State Authorities shall proceed in accordance with law. 21. The observations made in this judgment shall not be construed in any manner as an indictive of findings, for or against the parties herein, either for the purpose of investigation or for trial, thereafter, in any manner, which shall proceed, independent of any of the observations herein, in accordance with law.