JUDGMENT : (Ranjan Sharma, J.) Bail petitioner [Paras Justa], being in custody 05.04.2024, has come up before this Court, seeking regular bail, under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita [hereinafter referred to as BNSS] origination from FIR No.21 of 2024, dated 14.2.2024, under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act [in short the NDPS Act] registered at Police Station Theog, District Shimla,Himachal Pradesh. FACTUAL MATRIX 2. Case as set by Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Learned Senior Counsel is that petitioner has been falsely implicated and there is no evidence to connect the petitioner with the accusation and the petitioner is a young man belonging to a respectable family. It is averred that bail petitioner has been arrested merely on the basis of alleged call details and bank transactions between him and the main accused [Parikshit Dhani]. 2(i). It is averred that no recovery of contraband was made from the petitioner(s) whereas, the alleged recovery was made from Parikshit Dhani weighing 12.06 grams but after complying with the mandate of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act, the recovered contraband came out to be 8.58 grams [as per page 13 of paper book in instant case], which is an Intermediate Quantity. 2(ii). Bail petitioner has undertaken that he shall not cause any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, with the further undertaking that he shall abide by all the terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Court. It is averred that the bail petitioner has filed an application for bail before this Court i.e. Cr.MP(M) No.1159 of 2024, which was dismissed by this Court on 26.07.2024, Annexure P-1. Thereafter, petitioner filed bail application before Learned Special Judge Rohru, Camp at Theog, District Shimla, H.P. which was also dismissed on 21.01.2025, Annexure P-3. It is averred that nothing is to be recovered from bail petitioner by the Investigating Agency. It is averred that rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted and moreover when four other co-accused from whom no recovery was made have been enlarged on bail vide orders dated 10.1.2025 by this Court and orders dated 21.01.2025 passed by Learned Special Judge, [as stated in Para 10 of the bail petition]. In this background, petitioner has filed the instant application for bail. STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES 3. In this background, petitioner has filed the instant application for bail. STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES 3. Pursuant to issuance of notice on 13.02.2025, State Authorities have filed Status Report dated 28.02.2025. 3(i). Perusal of the Status Report indicates that on 14.2.2024, while police party was on patrolling duty at about 2:30 PM, a vehicle bearing No.HP-63C-5463 reached near Ekant Vatika, on the bye-pass, one person [Prikshit Dhani] on noticing the police became perplexed and on seeing the police party, accused [Prikshit Dhani] took out the polyethene from his pocket and threw it away, which was taken into custody by police and the same was found to be containing 28 bundles (pudia), wrapped in foil paper which on weighing, turned out to be 12.06 Grams of Chitta/Heroin. Pursuant to this recovery, main accused [Prikshit Dhani] was arrested on 14.02.2024. 3(ii). Pursuant to registration of FIR, the police started investigation and recorded statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Status Report reveals that during investigation, the main accused [Prikshit Dhani], disclosed that his friend Paras Justa and others who were with him residing in Chandigarh and resorted to sale and purchase of Chitta/Heroin. 3(iii). Status Report further indicates that CDRs and bank transactions of petitioner [Paras Justa] resorted to 307 calls and there were bank transactions amounting to Rs.3,97,206/- between the bail petitioner [Paras Justa] and main accused [Prikshit Dhani] from October, 2023 to February, 2024. 3(iv). Status Report indicates that petitioner has joined investigation and now the Challan-Final Police Report has been presented before jurisdictional Court and 31 witnesses are to be examined, out of which 6 PWs have been examined and the matter is fixed for Prosecution Evidence on 29.03.2025. 4. Heard Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Anubhav Chopra, Advocate, and Mr. Gobind Korla, Learned Additional Advocate General for the Respondent-State. MANDATE OF LAW ON BAIL: 5. 4. Heard Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Anubhav Chopra, Advocate, and Mr. Gobind Korla, Learned Additional Advocate General for the Respondent-State. MANDATE OF LAW ON BAIL: 5. Broad parameters have been mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, regulating the bail in the cases of 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 , 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 State of Haryana versus Dharamraj, 2023 SCC Online SC 1085, that bail is to be granted where the allegations are frivolous or groundless and incase neither any prima facie case nor reasonable grounds exists to believe or point towards the accusation. However, depending upon the facts of each case, the bail can be refused, in case, the prima facie case or reasonable grounds exits and if an offence is serious. Severity of punishment including reasonable apprehension of fleeing away from investigation and trial and the character, past antecedents, behavior, means, position and standing of an accused; likelihood of offence being repeated; reasonable apprehension of witnesses being influenced and danger of justice being thwarted by grant of bail etc. are relevant factors for denying the concession of bail. 5(i). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 3840 of 2023, Saumya Churasia versus Directorate of Enforcement, decided on 14.12.2023 held that the claim for bail, is to be examined by a Court, without delving into the evidence on merits but by forming a prima-facie opinion on totality of facts in the light of broad-parameters referred to above. ANALYSIS OF CLAIM FOR BAIL IN INSTANT CASE: 6. Taking into account the entirety of facts and circumstances and the material on record as is borne out from Status Report(s), this Court is of the considered view, that the bail petitioner [Paras Justa], is entitled to enlarged on bail, for the following reasons:- NO PRIMA-FACIE ACCUSATION AGAINST THE BAIL PETITIONER: 6(i). Taking into account the entirety of facts and circumstances and the material on record as is borne out from Status Report(s), this Court is of the considered view, that the bail petitioner [Paras Justa], is entitled to enlarged on bail, for the following reasons:- NO PRIMA-FACIE ACCUSATION AGAINST THE BAIL PETITIONER: 6(i). Status Report indicates that on 14.2.2024, while police party was on patrolling duty at about 2:30 PM, a vehicle bearing No.HP-63C-5463 reached near Ekant Vatika, on the bye-pass, one person [Prikshit Dhani] on noticing the police became perplexed and on seeing the police party, the accused [Prikshit Dhani] took out the polyethene from his pocket which was found to be containing 28 bundles (pudia), wrapped in foil paper which on weighing, turned out to be 12.06 Grams of Chitta/Heroin. Pursuant to the arrest of Parikshit Dhani and disclosure statement made by him the bail petitioner Paras Justa and others were roped-in, in view of the CDRs and bank transactions of bail petitioner [Paras Justa] with Prikshit Dhani w.e.f. October, 2023 to February, 2024. In above backdrop, the accusation under Section 21 of the NDPS Act alleging sale-purchase or transportation, etc. by the bail petitioner is a matter to be tested, examined and proved during the trial. 6(ii). Likewise, the accusation under Section 29 of NDPS Act alleging abatement or criminal conspiracy is a matter which is to be tested, examined and proved on by way of evidence during the trial. The continued detention alleging abatement or criminal conspiracy without there being any cogent material on record, certainly amounts to incarcerating the petitioner by way of punishment is impermissible; and in these circumstances, the prayer for bail has merit. CASES OF BAIL:INTERMEDIATE QUANTITY WHEN NO RECOVERY FROM BAIL PETITIONER AS IN INSTANT CASE: 7. While dealing with the issue relating to an intermediate quantity of contraband of Heroin/Chitta, 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. 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. 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. 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 orpsychotropic substance [International Non-proprietary Name (INN)] Chemical name 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. 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. 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) wasin 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.” 7(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 as under: 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 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. 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.” 7(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). 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. 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. INFRINGMENT OF PERSONAL LIBERTY UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: 8. While reiterating the principle that bail is a rule and jail is an exception and no accused can be deprived of personal liberty on mere accusation and an accused is to be treated as innocent in the eyes of law, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has outlined the object of bail in Guddan alias Roop Narayan Versus State of Rajasthan, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1242, in the following terms:- “11. In the case of Sanjay Chandra V. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40 , while hearing a bail Application in a case of an alleged economic offence, this court held that the object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. It was observed as under: "21. In the case of Sanjay Chandra V. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40 , while hearing a bail Application in a case of an alleged economic offence, this court held that the object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. It was observed as under: "21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. 23. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson. 25. The provisions of Cr PC confer discretionary jurisdiction on criminal courts to grant bail to the accused pending trial or in appeal against convictions; since the jurisdiction is discretionary, it has to be exercised with great care and caution by balancing the valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the society in general. In our view, the reasoning adopted by the learned District Judge, which is affirmed by the High Court, in our opinion, is a denial of the whole basis of our system of law and normal rule of bail system. It transcends respect for the requirement that a man shall be considered innocent until he is found guilty. If such power is recognised, then it may lead to chaotic situation and would jeopardise the personal liberty of an individual. 27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It transcends respect for the requirement that a man shall be considered innocent until he is found guilty. If such power is recognised, then it may lead to chaotic situation and would jeopardise the personal liberty of an individual. 27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution." 12. Further, in the case of Sandeep Jain v. National Capital Territory of Delhi, (2000) 2 SCC 66 , this Court, while hearing a bail application held that conditions for grant of bail cannot become so onerous that their existence itself is tantamount to refusal of bail. This Court held as under: "We are unable to appreciate even the first order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate imposing the onerous condition that an accused at the FIR stage should pay a huge sum of Rs. 2 lakhs to be set at liberty. If he had paid it is a different matter. But the fact that he was not able to pay that amount and in default thereof he is to languish in jail for more than 10 months now, is sufficient indication that he was unable to make up the amount. Can he be detained in custody endlessly for his inability to pay the amount in the range of Rs.2 lakhs? If the cheques issued by his surety were dishonoured, the Court could perhaps have taken it as a ground to suggest to the payee of the cheques to resort to the legal remedies provided by law. Similarly if the Court was dissatisfied with the conduct of the surety as for his failure to raise funds for honouring the cheques issued by him, the Court could have directed the appellant to substitute him with another surety. But to keep him in prison for such a long period, that too in a case where bail would normally be granted for the offences alleged, is not only hard but improper. It must be remembered that the Court has not even come to the conclusion that the allegations made in the FIR are true. That can be decided only when the trial concludes, if the case is charge-sheeted by the police." REFORMATIVE APPROACH IN BAIL: 9. It must be remembered that the Court has not even come to the conclusion that the allegations made in the FIR are true. That can be decided only when the trial concludes, if the case is charge-sheeted by the police." REFORMATIVE APPROACH IN BAIL: 9. While dealing with the concept of bail and the right of an accused for speedy trial and deprivation thereof curtails the personal liberty of an accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2787 of 2024, titled as Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Versus State of Maharashtra and Another, as under:- “18 Criminals are not born out but made. The human potential in everyone is good and so, never write off any criminal as beyond redemption. This humanist fundamental is often missed when dealing with delinquents, juvenile and adult. Indeed, every saint has a past and every sinner a future. When a crime is committed, a variety of factors is responsible for making the offender commit the crime. Those factors may be social and economic, may be, the result of value erosion or parental neglect; may be, because of the stress of circumstances, or the manifestation of temptations in a milieu of affluence contrasted with indigence or other privations. 19. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime. 20. We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an accused; not a convict. The over- arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly, howsoever stringent the penal law may be. 21 We are convinced that the manner in which the prosecuting agency as well as the Court have proceeded, the right of the accused to have a speedy trial could be said to have been infringed thereby violating Article 21 of the Constitution. 22 In view of the aforesaid, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. 21 We are convinced that the manner in which the prosecuting agency as well as the Court have proceeded, the right of the accused to have a speedy trial could be said to have been infringed thereby violating Article 21 of the Constitution. 22 In view of the aforesaid, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside.” BAIL NOT TO BE WITHHELD BY WAY OF PENALTY: ARTICLE 21 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: 10. While dealing with a matter relating to prolonged incarceration and the right to speedy trial and right of liberty to be sacrosanct right and while deprecating that the bail is not to be withheld as punishment so as to operate de hors the principle that bail is rule and jail is an exception, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Manish Sisodia vs Directorate of Enforcement, SLP (Criminal) No.8781 of 2024, decided on 09.08.2024, has held as under :- “49. We find that, on account of a long period of incarceration running for around 17 months and the trial even not having been commenced, the appellant has been deprived of his right to speedy trial. 50. As observed by this Court, the right to speedy trial and the right to liberty are sacrosanct rights. On denial of these rights, the trial court as well as the High Court ought to have given due weightage to this factor. 52. The Court also reproduced the observations made in Gudikanti Narasimhulu (supra), which read thus: “10. In the aforesaid context, we may remind the trial courts and the High Courts of what came to be observed by this Court in Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, High Court reported in (1978) 1 SCC 240 . We quote: “What is often forgotten, and therefore warrants reminder, is the object to keep a person in judicial custody pending trial or disposal of an appeal. Lord Russel, C.J., said [R v. Rose, (1898) 18 Cox]: “I observe that in this case bail was refused for the prisoner. It cannot be too strongly impressed on the, magistracy of the country that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment, but that the requirements as to bail are merely to secure the attendance of the prisoner at trial”” 53. It cannot be too strongly impressed on the, magistracy of the country that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment, but that the requirements as to bail are merely to secure the attendance of the prisoner at trial”” 53. The Court further observed that, over a period of time, the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well- settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. From our experience, we can say that it appears that the trial courts and the High Courts attempt to play safe in matters of grant of bail. The principle that bail is a rule and refusal is an exception is, at times, followed in breach. On account of non-grant of bail even in straight forward open and shut cases, this Court is flooded with huge number of bail petitions thereby adding to the huge pendency. It is high time that the trial courts and the High Courts should recognize the principle that “bail is rule and jail is exception”. 55. As observed by this Court in the case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu (supra), the objective to keep a person in judicial custody pending trial or disposal of an appeal is to secure the attendance of the prisoner at trial. 56. In the present case, the appellant is having deep roots in the society. There is no possibility of him fleeing away from the country and not being available for facing the trial. In any case, conditions can be imposed to address the concern of the State. 57. Insofar as the apprehension given by the learned ASG regarding the possibility of tampering the evidence is concerned, it is to be noted that the case largely depends on documentary evidence which is already seized by the prosecution. As such, there is no possibility of tampering with the evidence. Insofar as the concern with regard to influencing the witnesses is concerned, the said concern can be addressed by imposing stringent conditions upon the appellant.” 11. As such, there is no possibility of tampering with the evidence. Insofar as the concern with regard to influencing the witnesses is concerned, the said concern can be addressed by imposing stringent conditions upon the appellant.” 11. While adjudicating the claim for bail, even under Special Enactments, like PMLA [akin to NDPS Act], the Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No._____of 2024 [Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 10778 of 2024], titled as Kalvakuntla Kavitha Versus Directorate of Enforcement and connected matter has mandated that fundamental right of liberty provided under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is superior to the statutory restrictions, in the following terms:- “13. We had also reiterated the well-established principle that “bail is the rule and refusal is an exception”. We had further observed that the fundamental right of liberty provided under Article 21 of the Constitution is superior to the statutory restrictions.” PROLONGED INCARCERATION AND INFRINGMENT OF PERSONAL LIBERTY UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 12. While reiterating the grant of bail, despite statutory embargoes in Special Enactments, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.5266 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (CRL.) No. 13870 of 2024, titled as Partha Chatterjee Versus Directorate of Enforcement, decided on 13.12.2024, 2024 SCC Online SC 3729, has been reiterated, by treating the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India to be of paramount importance and action of prolonging the incarceration so as to make such incarceration punitive has been deprecated by granting bail, in the following terms:- “13. We have considered the rival submissions and carefully examined the material on record. At the outset, it is worth reiterating that this Court, through a catena of decisions, has consistently emphasized that prolonged incarceration of an accused awaiting trial unjustly deprives them of their right to personal liberty. Even statutory embargoes on the grant of bail must yield when weighed against the paramount importance of the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, particularly in cases where such incarceration extends over an unreasonably long period without conclusion of trial. 17. We, however, cannot be oblivious to the settled principles that a suspect cannot be held in custody indefinitely and that undertrial incarceration should not amount to punitive detention. 17. We, however, cannot be oblivious to the settled principles that a suspect cannot be held in custody indefinitely and that undertrial incarceration should not amount to punitive detention. The Court would, nevertheless, ensure that affluent or influential accused do not obstruct the ongoing investigation, tamper with evidence, or influence witnesses, namely, actions that undermine the fundamental doctrine of a fair trial. 18. Striking a balance between these considerations and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this appeal with the following directions: f. The Petitioner shall thereafter be released on bail on 01.02.2025, subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court; ......” Prolonged detention of petitioner, in facts of this case, shall certainly amount to depriving and curtailing the personal liberty of the petitioner on mere accusation or conjectures or surmises, which are yet to be tested, examined and proved during the trial. Detention of the petitioner can neither be punitive nor preventative, so as to make the petitioner to taste imprisonment as a lesson. Denial of bail shall certainly violate the principle that “bail is rule and jail is an exception”. Even, the State Authorities, have failed to ensure speedy trial and still considerable time is likely to be taken for conclusion of trial. Therefore, in view of the mandate of law the claim of the petitioner for bail carries weight. CDR’S AND BTRS CANNOT FORM BASIS FOR PROLONGING INCARCERATION WHEN INVESTIGATION COMPLETE AND CHALLAN FILED AND RECORDING OF PROSECUTION EVIDENCE COMMENCED: 13 CDRs and Bank Transactions though can be of some relevance for the purpose of investigation but once investigation is complete and Challan has been filed, then, in such an eventuality prolongation of detention shall certainly amount to violating the personal liberty of bail petitioner as mandated in Article 21 of the Constitution of India and therefore, in facts of instant case, further detention/prolongation cannot be permitted and moreover when the material in CDRs and BTR’s (Bank Transaction Records] are to be tested, examined and proved during trial. In these circumstances, the claim for bail, needs to be accepted and is ordered accordingly. CLAIM FOR ENLARGEMENT ON BAIL ON PRINCIPLE OF PARITY: 14. In these circumstances, the claim for bail, needs to be accepted and is ordered accordingly. CLAIM FOR ENLARGEMENT ON BAIL ON PRINCIPLE OF PARITY: 14. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner asserts that four other co-accused, namely, Vikram, Rakshit Chauhan were enlarged on bail vide orders dated 10.01.2025 passed by this Court and two other co-accused, namely, Abhay Chauhan and Aditya Chauhan were enlarged on bail by Learned Special Judge on 21.01.2025. Learned State Counsel has not been able to show as to how the role of petitioner Paras Justa is different from other four co-accused, as no recovery has been effected from any of them including bail petitioner. Thus, once the role of petitioner is akin to other co-accused, who have been enlarged on bail, therefore, in these circumstances the claim for bail carries weight and is accepted. PAST CRIMINAL ANTECEDENTS: 15. Learned State Counsel has opposed the claim for bail on the ground that the petitioner has criminal antecedents, who has been involved in another case i.e. FIR No. 65 of 2021, dated 15.09.2021, under Section 21, 27 and 29 of the NDPS, then the past criminal antecedents cannot be the sole ground for denying bail has been outlined by the Honble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohammed Amir Rashidi versus State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 2 SCC 382 , [Paras 4 to 13], which was further reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648 , [Paras 4 to 9]. The petitioner was undergoing incarceration and no cogent material has been placed on record revealing any possibility of accused fleeing away from trial or an accused is likely to threaten witnesses or is likely to thwart justice. 15(i). While extending the concession of bail despite past criminal antecedents, on principle that ‘bail is rule and jail is an exception’, benefit of bail, and an accused is presumed to be innocent and in the guise of pending cases, the presumption of guilt could not be inferred as has been outlined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India versus Mrityunjay Kumar Singh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 852, in the following terms:- “9. He would contend that there are other three (3) cases registered against the respondent which would suffice to reject the bail in the instant case relying upon the letter dated 15.12.2023 written by the father of the complainant in the case No.225 of 2023 addressed to the State Police alleging that the respondent and his associates are threatening the life of the complainant and pressurizing him to withdraw the case and hence there is every likelihood of the witnesses in the instant case also being threatened therefore he seeks for allowing of the appeal and setting aside the order of the High Court. He would further contend that the respondent is an influential person and would make all attempts to threaten or influence witnesses and there is every likelihood that he may succeed in his attempts if he continues to have the benefit of the bail. He would also submit that respondent is an influential and a person with criminal history and having close ties with many gangsters and criminals apart from the top cadres CPI-Maoist, as such there is every likelihood for the respondent to tamper with the evidence and influence the witnesses. Hence, he prays for the appeal being allowed and impugned order being set aside. 10. Shri Siddharth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent, by supporting the impugned order contends that the High Court has rightly set aside the order of the Special Judge by granting bail to the respondent conditionally way back on 30.01.2023 and even after lapse of more than 1 year and 3 months, there being no allegation on the conditions of bail having been violated, itself is a good ground for non-interference with the order of bail granted by the High Court. Elaborating his submissions, he would contend that the prosecution is seeking for the impugned order being set aside essentially on the ground that respondent is involved in three (3) cases apart from the case registered by NIA. He would further submit that the case registered by Chandwa PS in Case No.99 of 2014 has resulted in acquittal and in the case No.108 of 2015, the respondent has been enlarged on bail by the High Court of Jharkhand. He would further submit that the case registered by Chandwa PS in Case No.99 of 2014 has resulted in acquittal and in the case No.108 of 2015, the respondent has been enlarged on bail by the High Court of Jharkhand. Lastly, in the case No.4 of 2020, the respondent has been granted anticipatory bail by the High Court of Jharkhand and as such the purported criminal antecedent did not sway in the mind of High Court while considering the prayer for grant of bail. Even otherwise the pendency of three (3) other cases would have no bearing for the continuation of the order of bail granted in favour of the respondent. Hence, he has prayed for rejection of the appeal. 16. The afore-stated facts when seen cumulatively, it would reflect that respondent having been enlarged on bail conditionally and the conditions so stipulated having not been violated and undisputedly the appellant-state having not sought for cancellation of the bail till date would be the prime reason for us not to entertain this appeal. In fact, the apprehension of the Union of India that respondent is likely to pose threat to the witnesses and there was a threat posed to the complainant, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, would not be a ground to set aside the impugned order enlarging the respondent on bail in as much in the case referred against the respondent for the said offence he has been granted bail. That apart we are of the considered view that there are no other overwhelming material on record to set aside the order granting bail which out weighs the liberty granted by the High Court under the impugned order. 17. Hence, we are of the considered view that interference is not warranted. However, to allay the apprehension of the prosecution it would suffice to observe that the prosecution would be at liberty to seek for cancellation of the bail in the event any of the conditions being violated by the respondent and in the event of such an application being filed we see no reason as to why said application would not be considered on its own merits by the jurisdictional court independently and without being influenced by its earlier observations. We also make it expressly clear that the observations made under the impugned order would be restricted to the consideration of the prayer for bail and the jurisdictional court without being influenced by any of the observation shall proceed to adjudicate the case on merits after trial. Subject to the above observations, the appeal stands dismissed.” 15(ii). While dealing with validity of bail order the Hon’ble Supreme Court has mandated that the criminal antecedents were not much relevant in case, no prima facie case was made out and the period of incarceration was prolonged, in Ayub Khan versus State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3763, in the following terms:- “9. The principles to be followed while deciding on a bail application are well settled. If Trial Courts commit errors while deciding bail applications, the same can always be corrected on the judicial side by the Courts, which are higher in the judicial hierarchy. The Constitutional Courts can lay down the principles governing the grant of bail or anticipatory bail. However, the Constitutional Courts cannot interfere with the discretion of our Trial Courts by laying down the form in which an order should be passed while deciding bail applications. What the High Court has done in paragraph 9 in the decision in the case of Jugal Kishore is that it has made it mandatory for the Trial Courts to incorporate a chart containing details of the antecedents of the accused who applies for bail. 10. The presence of the antecedents of the accused is only one of the several considerations for deciding the prayer for bail made by him. In a given case, if the accused makes out a strong prima facie case, depending upon the fact situation and period of incarceration, the presence of antecedents may not be a ground to deny bail. There may be a case where a Court can grant bail only on the grounds of long incarceration. The presence of antecedents may not be relevant in such a case. In a given case, the Court may grant default bail. Again, the antecedents of the accused are irrelevant in such a case. Thus, depending upon the peculiar facts, the Court can grant bail notwithstanding the existence of the antecedents. In such cases, the question of incorporating details of antecedents in a tabular form does not arise. In a given case, the Court may grant default bail. Again, the antecedents of the accused are irrelevant in such a case. Thus, depending upon the peculiar facts, the Court can grant bail notwithstanding the existence of the antecedents. In such cases, the question of incorporating details of antecedents in a tabular form does not arise. If the directions in the case of Jugal Kishore are to be strictly implemented, the Court may have to adjourn the hearing of the bail applications to enable the prosecutor to submit the details in the prescribed tabular format. 15(iii). Pendency of other criminal cases cannot be invoked for denying bail, when prolonged incarceration was writ large, has been mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prem Prakash versus Union of India through Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2270, in the following terms:- “46. The Investigating Agency have also referred to ECIR No. 4 as a criminal antecedent. A reference was made to ECIR No. 4 of 2022 pertaining to illegal Stone Mining and related activities in Saheb Ganj, Jharkhand, where the petitioner was arrested on 25.08.2022 and the prosecution complaint was filed on 16.09.2022. Insofar as the bail pertaining to ECIR No. 4 of 2022, which is pending in this Court in SLP (Criminal) No. 691 of 2023, at the after notice stage, the merits of the bail in that case will be independently examined. Having examined the facts of the present case arising out of ECIR No. 5 of 2023 and in view of the findings recorded hereinabove, we do not think that the appellant can be denied bail based on the pendency of the other matter. We say so in the facts and circumstances of the present case as we do not find any justification for his continued detention. The appellant has already been in custody for over one year. The Trial is yet to commence. There is a reference to one more ECIR which the Investigating Agency refers to in their counter, namely, ECIR /RNZO /18 / 2022 but nothing is available from the record as to whether any proceedings have been taken against the appellant. 49. In the result, we pass the following order:- (i) The appeal is allowed and impugned order dated 22.03.2024 is quashed and set-aside. 49. In the result, we pass the following order:- (i) The appeal is allowed and impugned order dated 22.03.2024 is quashed and set-aside. (ii) The Trial Court is directed to release the appellant on bail in connection with ED case No. ECIR No. 5 of 2023 on furnishing bail bonds for a sum of Rs.5 lakh with 2 sureties of the like amount.” NOTHING ADVERSARIAL REGARDING TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE OR WITNESSES ETC: 16. Status Reports filed by State Authorities have neither pointed out cogent and convincing material revealing adversarial circumstances that after release on bail, the petitioner is likely to tamper with evidence or may cause inducement, threat or promise to any person or persons acquainted with the facts of the case. However, the apprehension if any, of the State Authorities are being safeguarded, by imposing stringent conditions in this bail order. NOTHING ADVERSARIAL REGARDING OBSTRUCTING OR ATTEMPTING TO THWARTLING JUSTICE : 17. Status Reports filed by State Authorities have neither pointed out any adversarial circumstances nor placed on record any cogent and convincing material on record to infer that after release on bail, the petitioner may obstruct or thwart the cause of justice in any manner. In absence of any material, the plea for bail deserves to be granted to the petitioner in the instant case. NOTHING ADVERSARIAL LIKELIHOOD OF FLEEING AWAY FROM TRIAL OR JURISDICTION OF COURT: 18. In order to safeguard the rights of bail petitioner and to take care of apprehensions of State that bail petitioner may flee away [notwithstanding the fact that no such apprehension has been pointed out in Status Report] yet, in peculiar facts of this case, this Court stringent conditions in the bail orders, in later part of this order. CONCLUSION: 19. In order to safeguard the rights of bail petitioner and to take care of apprehensions of State that bail petitioner may flee away [notwithstanding the fact that no such apprehension has been pointed out in Status Report] yet, in peculiar facts of this case, this Court stringent conditions in the bail orders, in later part of this order. CONCLUSION: 19. In the facts of instant case, the plea of petitioner for bail carries weight, for the reason, that firstly, prima facie prosecution story appears to be highly doubtful and improbable at this stage as discussed hereinabove; and secondly, the Status Report reveals that bail petitioner is in custody since 05.04.2024 and is undergoing incarceration for about 11 months; and thirdly, conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time when out of total 31 PWs only 6 PWs have been examined as yet; and fourthly, the delay in trial is not attributable to the petitioner; and fifthly, an accused is presumed to be innocent unless proven guilty; and sixthly, the continued detention can neither be punitive nor preventative and seventhly, the continued detention in guise of penalizing the petitioner by presuming guilt cannot be permitted; and eighthly, even the State Authorities have not placed any cogent and convincing material that after release on bail there is possibility of accused fleeing away from the trial or an accused is likely to threaten witnesses or is likely to thwart justice; and ninthly, even the State Authorities have not placed anything on record to show that petitioner has misused liberty granted to him earlier; and tenthly, even the past criminal antecedents [one FIR for which trial is commenced] cannot be the sole basis for prolonging detention when, the accusation is yet to be tested, examined and proved during trial; lastly, in order to safeguard the interests of the State vis-à-vis the right of petitioner, this Court imposes stringent condition(s) in this order and in case of any violation of or misuse of the concession- liberty, the State Authority can seek cancellation of the concession extended to the petitioner. Denial of bail shall deprive and curtail the sacrosanct fundamental rights of personal liberty and right of speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India of the petitioner at this stage. Denial of bail shall deprive and curtail the sacrosanct fundamental rights of personal liberty and right of speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India of the petitioner at this stage. On totality of facts and circumstances and the mandate of law as referred to above, the claim of the petitioner for enlargement on bail carries weight, in the peculiar facts-situation of this case, as discussed above. DIRECTIONS: 20. Taking into account the entirety of the facts and the material on record and the mandate of law, as referred to above and in the peculiar facts of the instant matters, the instant petition is allowed, and the State Authorities are directed to release the petitioner [Paras Justa] on bail, subject to the observance of the following conditions:- (i) Respondent-State Authorities shall release bail petitioner [Paras Justa] on furnishing personal bond of Rs.75,000/- {Rs Seventy Five Thousand} with two sureties on furnishing similar bond amount each, to the satisfaction of Learned Trial Court concerned; (ii) Petitioner shall undertake and shall also appear on every date of trial hereinafter; (iii) Petitioner shall abide by all or any other condition(s), which may be imposed by the Learned Trial Court, in view of this order; (iv) Petitioner shall neither involve himself nor shall abet the commission of any offence hereinafter. Involvement in any offence whatsoever or abetting thereof shall entail automatic cancellation of bail granted in terms of this order ; (v) Petitioner shall disclose his functional E-Mail IDs/WhatsApp number and that of his surety to the Learned Trial Court; (vi) Petitioner after release, shall report to the Investigating Officer or SHO of Police Station concerned, on 2nd Sunday of every month at 08.00 a.m., only for having an update on good conduct and behaviour; (vii) Petitioner shall not jump over the bail and also shall not leave the country without the prior information of the Court; (viii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence in any manner; (ix) Petitioner shall not cause any inducement, threat or promise {directly or indirectly} to witnesses of any other person acquainted with the case; (x) Petitioner is free to seek modification of any condition contained hereinabove, if need arises; (xi) State Authorities are free to move this Court for seeking alteration/modification of any of the condition contained in this order or any condition imposed by the Learned Trial Court as a sequel to this order, in fact situation of instant case or circumstances so necessitate, at any time herein-after; (xii) State Authorities are free to move this Court for seeking cancellation of the concession of bail, in case, the petitioner violates any of the conditions contained in this order.; 21. 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, which shall proceed in-accordance with law, irrespective of any of the observations contained hereinabove. 22. 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 about the passing of this order from the Website of this Court. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.