JUDGMENT : (Ranjan Sharma, J.) Bail petitioner [Rishab Seghal], being in custody since 11.02.2024 has come up before this Court, seeking regular bail, under Section 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure hereinafter Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, (referred to as BNSS) originating from the FIR No. 11 of 2024 dated 10.02.2024, registered at Police Station Parwanoo, District Solan [H.P.], under Section 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (referred to as the NDPS Act). FACTUAL MATRIX 2. Case set up by Mr. Anriudh Sharma, Learned Advocate, is that on 10.02.2024, two boys namely Rishabh Seghal and Anish Sonker were allegedly found to have been carrying contraband with intent to indulge in business of selling of Chitta/herion, near Shivalik Hotel, Parwanoo. The police intercepted aforesaid two boys and recovery of Chitta/heroin was made from aforesaid persons. Consequently, an FIR No.11 of 2024, dated 10.02.2024 was registered against these two boys by the police. 2(i). Bail petitioner has moved the Bail application(s) which were rejected on 27.05.2024, [Annexure P-1] and the second application was withdrawn on 12.07.2024 [Annexure P-2] and the third one was decided on 23.08.2024, [Annexure P-3]. 2(ii). Case of the petitioner-accused is that, he has been falsely implicated. It is averred that there is no evidence to connect the petitioner with the accusation and he has been wrongly and falsely implicated with alleged contraband. Bail petitioner has furnished an undertaking that he abide by all the terms and conditions as will be imposed by this Court. Bail petitioner has averred that he shall not cause any inducement, threat or promise to any person or persons acquainted with the facts of the case and shall not flee away from investigation and trial. It is averred that personal liberty of petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution of India could neither be curtailed or taken away by way of penalty by prolonging the detention by presuming the guilt against the petitioner. Instant bail petition has been filed by bail petitioner, through his mother with the prayer for releasing the petitioner on bail. STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES 3. Upon issuance of notice by this Court on 25.11.2024, respondent-State Authorities filed the Status Report dated 23.12.2024 and another Status Report on 21.02.2025, when the matter was heard and judgement was reserved. However, it transpired that certain points needed clarification from the Learned State Counsel. STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES 3. Upon issuance of notice by this Court on 25.11.2024, respondent-State Authorities filed the Status Report dated 23.12.2024 and another Status Report on 21.02.2025, when the matter was heard and judgement was reserved. However, it transpired that certain points needed clarification from the Learned State Counsel. Accordingly, it was reheard and was reheard with the consent of parties and was reserved on 1.3.2025. 3(i). Perusal of Status Report reveals that on the basis of secret information dated 10.02.2024 the petitioner Rishab Seghal and co-accused Anish were intercepted by police at 3.55 P.M near Shivalik Hotel Parwanoo. Thereafter at about 4.30 P.M an independent witness, namely, Lakhwinder Singh, Ward Member was associated. Thereafter at about 5.20 P.M personal search of both the accused was conducted in the presence of Gazetted Officer/SDPO, Pranav Chauhan, leading to recovery of Heroin/Chitta weighing 39.70 grams from the petitioner and contraband i.e. Heroin/Chitta weighing 9.33 grams from co-accused Anish Sonker. After completing the codal formalities, the bail petitioner was arrested on 11.02.2024. During interrogation the bail petitioner Rishabh and co-accused Anish disclosed that they had conspired with one Nigerian, namely [TIDJ MAMANE], who was living in Delhi and they had been in contact with aforesaid Nigerian [TIDJ MAMANE] for the last about three years. Status Report reveals that aforesaid two persons [Rishabh Seghal and Anish Sonker] were deployed by Devinder @ Chinda to Delhi, to meet the Nigerian at Delhi and for bringing the alleged contraband and for sale/purchase. In above background, State Authorities have prayed for the rejection of bail application. 4. Heard, Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Learned Counsel for petitioner and Ms. Pryanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General for Respondent(s). MANDATE OF LAW ON BAIL: 5. In above background, State Authorities have prayed for the rejection of bail application. 4. Heard, Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Learned Counsel for petitioner and Ms. Pryanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General for Respondent(s). 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 [Rishabh Seghal], 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 [Rishabh Seghal], is entitled to enlarged on bail, for the following reasons:- NO PRIMA-FACIE ACCUSATION AGAINST THE BAIL PETITIONER: 6(i). Status Report(s) indicate that H.C. Shubham received information on 10.02.2024 at about 3.30 p.m that bail petitioner [Rishabh Seghal] and co-accused Anish Sonker were coming from Kali Mandir Kalka towards Parwanoo on foot and were carrying contraband. Based on the information received, the police party headed by H.C Shubham, stopped the bail petitioner and the co-accused near Shivalik Hotel, Parwanoo at about 3.55 p.m on 10.02.2024. Status report further indicates that at about 4.20 P.M the police party associated Lakhwinder Singh a Ward Member as an Independent Witness. Status Report indicates that before carrying out the necessary search, the Gazetted Officer-SDPO, Pranav Chauhan, reached the spot at about 5.20 P.M on 10.02.2024; whereafter, the search was conducted and contraband weighing 39.70 grams of Heroin/Chitta was taken into possession from bail petitioner [Rishabh Seghal] and contraband weighing 9.33 gram of Heroin/ Chitta was recovered from co-accused [Anish Sonker]. After completing codal formalities Rukka was sent to concerned Police Station, leading to registration of the F.I.R. Status Report(s) indicates that the recovered contraband, in cloth parcel(s) marked A-I, which was allegedly recovered from bail petitioner [Rishabh Seghal] and another cloth parcel marked A-II allegedly recovered from co-accused [Anish Sonker], were sent for chemical analysis to Forensic Science Laboratory Junga for analysis and as per FSL Report dated 4.2.2024, the recovered contraband in both parcels i.e. A-I and A-II were homogenized revealing presence of Diacetylmorphine. The accusation regarding [possession of alleged contraband intended sale-purchase or transportation, etc.] under Section 21 of the NDPS Act 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 amount to incarcerating the petitioner by way punishment, is impermissible; and in these circumstances, the prayer for bail has merit. 6(iii). The continued detention alleging abatement or criminal conspiracy without there being any cogent material on record, certainly amount to incarcerating the petitioner by way punishment, is impermissible; and in these circumstances, the prayer for bail has merit. 6(iii). Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that once bail petitioner [Rishabh Seghal] and co-accused [Anish Sonker] were apprehended by police leading to alleged recovery of contraband weighing 39.70 gm. of Heroin/Chitta, as in cloth parcel, i.e. Mark A-I from the petitioner [Rishabh Seghal] and another recovery of alleged contraband weighing 9.33 gm of Chitta as in cloth parcel Mark A-II from co-accused [Anish Sonker], then, the Learned Counsel for petitioner states that as per FSL Report dated 04.02.2024, the recovered contraband A-I and A-II were illegally homogenized. Faced with this situation, Learned State Counsel is also unable to give any satisfactory explanation and has not placed on record anything to show as to why and under what circumstances two different recoveries, affected from two different accused were homogenized by the FSL, as reflected in the Status Report. In these circumstances, the prosecution story and the prima facie accusation, at this stage, appears to be doubtful and not worthy of credence. 6(iv). Perusal of Status Report indicate that the contraband weighing 39.70 gm. of Heroin-Chitta was allegedly recovered from bail petitioner [Rishabh Seghal] and contraband weighing 9.33 gm. of Chitta was recovered from co-accused [Anish Sonker] by the Police on 10.02.2024. Admittedly, the alleged contraband falls within the ambit of Intermediate Quantity in instant case and therefore, the rigors of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 are not applicable in the instant case. INFRINGMENT OF PERSONAL LIBERTY UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: 7. 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. 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: 8. 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: 8. 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: 9. 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.” 10. 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.” 10. 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 11. 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. PAST CRIMINAL ANTECEDENTS: 12. Status Report(s) indicate that the bail petitioner has no criminal antecedents. In these circumstances, the prolongation of detention when there is nothing adverse regarding the past criminal antecedents also supports the case of bail petitioner for enlargement of bail. NOTHING ADVERSARIAL REGARDING TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE OR WITNESSES ETC: 13. 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 : 14. 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 : 14. 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: 15. 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: 16. 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: 16. 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 11.02.2024 and is undergoing incarceration for about one year and one month; and thirdly, conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time when out of total 30 PWs none has 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, the petitioner has no past criminal antecedents and the accusation is yet to be tested, examined and proved during the trial; and lastly, in order to safeguard the interest of State vis-à-vis the right of petitioner, this Court imposes stringent condition 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, referred to above, the claim of the petitioner [Rishabh Seghal] for enlargement on bail carries weight, in the peculiar facts-situation of this case, as discussed above. DIRECTIONS: 17. Taking into account the entirety of the facts and the material on record and the mandate of law and the reasons recorded hereinabove, and in the peculiar facts of case, the instant petition is allowed; and the State Authorities are directed to release the petitioner [Rishabh Seghal] on bail, subject to the observance of following conditions:- (i) Respondent-State Authorities shall release bail petitioner [Rishab Seghal] 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 the 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 11.00 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.; 18. 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. 19. 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. 20. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to Superintendent of Police, Panchkula, Haryana, for information and with a direction to intimate the SHO, Police Station, Panchkula to keep an update on good conduct and behaviour of the bail petitioner [Rishabh Seghal] in terms of this order. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.