JUDGMENT : Rakesh Kainthla, J. The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested vide F.I.R. No. 195 of 2024, dated 04.11.2024, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ‘NDPS Act’) registered with the Police station West Boileauganj, Shimla. The petitioner is innocent, and he was falsely implicated. The petitioner does not have any criminal history, and he is not likely to commit the offence in case of his release on bail. He would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, the petition. 2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police stopped a bus bearing registration No. HP-64A-3814 for checking on 04.11.2024. The petitioner was occupying seat No.30, and Jitender Kumar was occupying seat No.31. The petitioner had concealed a plastic bag, which was checked. It was found to be containing 7.500 grams of heroin. The police seized the heroin and arrested the petitioner and Jitender Kumar. The petitioner revealed on inquiry that the heroin was purchased from Deepak for Rs.8,000/-. The heroin was sent to FSL and was found to be a sample of Diacetylmorphine. FIR No.79/2024 dated 10.05.2024 has also been registered against the petitioner in police station Boileauganj for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 21 of the NDPS Act, which is pending before the Court. The petitioner can indulge in the commission of similar offences in case of his release on bail; hence, the status report. 3. I have heard Mr. Rajesh Kashyap, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State. 4. Mr Rajesh Kashyap, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to the present case. Co-accused Jitender Kumar has already been released on bail by learned Special Judge-I, Shimla. The petitioner is entitled to bail on the principle of parity; therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 5. The rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to the present case. Co-accused Jitender Kumar has already been released on bail by learned Special Judge-I, Shimla. The petitioner is entitled to bail on the principle of parity; therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 5. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner is a drug peddler and can indulge in the commission of similar offences in case of his release on bail; hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 7. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajwar v. Waseem (2024) 10 SCC 768 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 974, wherein it was observed as under page 783: - “Relevant parameters for granting bail 26. While considering as to whether bail ought to be granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court must consider relevant factors like the nature of the accusations made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of tampering of the witnesses and repeating the offence, if the accused are released on bail, the likelihood of the accused being unavailable in the event bail is granted, the possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading the courts of justice and the overall desirability of releasing the accused on bail. [Refer: Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. [ Chaman Lal v. State of U.P . [Refer: Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. [ Chaman Lal v. State of U.P . ( 2004) 7 SCC 525: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1974]; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977]; Masroor v. State of U.P. [Masroor v. State of U.P., (2009) 14 SCC 286 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1368]; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee [Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765]; Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527]; Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi)[Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 12 SCC 129 : (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 425]; Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar [Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 558] . 8. This position was reiterated in Ramratan v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3068, wherein it was observed as under:- “12. The fundamental purpose of bail is to ensure the accused's presence during the investigation and trial. Any conditions imposed must be reasonable and directly related to this objective. This Court in Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharastra (2020) 10 SCC 77 observed that though the competent court is empowered to exercise its discretion to impose “any condition” for the grant of bail under Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) CrPC, the discretion of the court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the presence of the accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused is not misused to impede the investigation, overawe the witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. The relevant observations are extracted herein below: “14. The language of Section 437(3) CrPC, which uses the expression “any condition … otherwise in the interest of justice” has been construed in several decisions of this Court. The relevant observations are extracted herein below: “14. The language of Section 437(3) CrPC, which uses the expression “any condition … otherwise in the interest of justice” has been construed in several decisions of this Court. Though the competent court is empowered to exercise its discretion to impose “any condition” for the grant of bail under Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) CrPC, the discretion of the court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the presence of the accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused is not misused to impede the investigation, overawe the witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. Several decisions of this Court have dwelt on the nature of the conditions which can legitimately be imposed both in the context of bail and anticipatory bail.” (Emphasis supplied) 13. In Sumit Mehta v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) 15 SCC 570 this Court discussed the scope of the discretion of the Court to impose “any condition” on the grant of bail and observed in the following terms:— “15. The words “any condition” used in the provision should not be regarded as conferring absolute power on a court of law to impose any condition that it chooses to impose. Any condition has to be interpreted as a reasonable condition acceptable in the facts permissible in the circumstance and effective in the pragmatic sense and should not defeat the order of grant of bail. We are of the view that the present facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant such extreme condition to be imposed.” (Emphasis supplied) 14. This Court, in Dilip Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) 2 SCC 779 , laid down the factors to be taken into consideration while deciding the bail application and observed: “ 4. It is well settled by a plethora of decisions of this Court that criminal proceedings are not for the realisation of disputed dues. It is open to a court to grant or refuse the prayer for anticipatory bail, depending on the facts and circumstances of the particular case. It is well settled by a plethora of decisions of this Court that criminal proceedings are not for the realisation of disputed dues. It is open to a court to grant or refuse the prayer for anticipatory bail, depending on the facts and circumstances of the particular case. The factors to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail are the nature of the accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses; the reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; character, behaviour and standing of the accused; and the circumstances which are peculiar or the accused and larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations. A criminal court, exercising jurisdiction to grant bail/anticipatory bail, is not expected to act as a recovery agent to realise the dues of the complainant, and that too, without any trial.” (Emphasis supplied) 9. This position was reiterated in Shabeen Ahmad v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 479. 10. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 11. The status report shows that the petitioner was found in possession of 7.500 grams of heroin. Heroin affects the younger generation adversely, and its possession cannot be lightly viewed. 12. The status report shows that FIR No.79/2024 was registered against the petitioner for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 21 of the NDPS Act. It shows that the petitioner has criminal antecedents. This Court exhaustively dealt with the relevance of criminal antecedents in Aminodin vs State of H.P. 2024:HHC: 6091 and held after referring to various judgments that a Judge must consider the criminal antecedents of the accused, the nature of such offences and his general conduct while considering the bail petition. The bail should not be generally granted to an accused having criminal antecedents when there is a likelihood of the commission of the crime. The bail should not be generally granted to an accused having criminal antecedents when there is a likelihood of the commission of the crime. In the present case, the registration of the FIR against the petitioner shows that he is likely to commit a crime in case of his release on bail, and the petitioner cannot be released on bail on this consideration as well. 13. It was submitted that the co-accused has been released on bail, and the petitioner is also entitled to bail based on the parity. This submission is not acceptable. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana , (2021) 6 SCC 230 : (2021) 2 SCC (Cri) 722: 2021 SCC OnLine SC 335 that while determining the parity the role of the accused has to be considered. It was observed at page 246: “Parity while granting bail must focus upon the role of the accused. Merely observing that another accused who was granted bail was armed with a similar weapon is not sufÏcient to determine whether a case for the grant of bail based on parity has been established. In deciding the aspect of parity, the role attached to the accused, their position in relation to the incident, and the victims is of utmost importance. The High Court has proceeded on the basis of parity on a simplistic assessment as noted above, which again cannot pass muster under the law.” 14. This position was reiterated in Tarun Kumar v. Enforcement Directorate, AIR 2024 SC 169 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1486, wherein it was observed: “18. The submission of learned Counsel Mr Luthra to grant bail to the appellant on the ground that the other co-accused, who were similarly situated as the appellant, have been granted bail, also cannot be accepted. It may be noted that parity is not the law. While applying the principle of parity, the Court is required to focus upon the role attached to the accused whose application is under consideration.” 15. The bail order of the co-accused-Jitender Kumar, shows that no recovery was effected from him. He was merely occupying the seat adjacent to the petitioner. The recovery of heroin was effected from the petitioner, and he cannot claim parity with the co-accused. 16. The bail order of the co-accused-Jitender Kumar, shows that no recovery was effected from him. He was merely occupying the seat adjacent to the petitioner. The recovery of heroin was effected from the petitioner, and he cannot claim parity with the co-accused. 16. It was submitted that the quantity of heroin recovered from the possession of the petitioner is an intermediate quantity, and the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to the present case. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to bail. This submission cannot be accepted. It was laid down by this Court in Dilbar Khan v. State of H.P., 2022 SCC OnLine HP 2441, that a person found in possession of an intermediate quantity of drugs is not entitled to bail as a matter or right. It was observed: - “9. No doubt the quantity of contraband in the case is intermediate and therefore the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not be applicable. Merely because the quantity of contraband recovered is less than the commercial quantity may not by itself be sufÏcient to grant bail. 10. The menace of drug abuse is not unknown in the society in modern times. The victims are innocent adolescents besides others. The drug abuse more often than not leads to drug addiction, which ruins the lives of a substantial number of such persons. The question arises as to how young adolescents, who by and large remain in the custody of their guardians, are able to procure the prohibited drug. Definitely, the drug is made available through a supply chain managed in an organized manner.” 17. It was laid down by this Court in Khushi Ram Gupta v. State of H.P., 2022 SCC OnLine HP 3779 that the menace of drug addiction has seriously eroded into the fabric of society and the release of an accused on bail in NDPS Act cases will send a negative signal to society. It was observed: “8. The menace of drug addiction, especially in adolescents and students has seriously eroded into the fabric of society, putting the future generation as well as the prospects of future nation-building into serious peril. 9. It is not a case where the investigating agency is clueless in respect of evidence against the petitioner. It was observed: “8. The menace of drug addiction, especially in adolescents and students has seriously eroded into the fabric of society, putting the future generation as well as the prospects of future nation-building into serious peril. 9. It is not a case where the investigating agency is clueless in respect of evidence against the petitioner. Though allegations against the petitioner are yet to be proved in accordance with law, it cannot be singly taken as a factor to grant bail to the petitioner. Nothing has been placed on record on behalf of the petitioner to divulge as to how and in what manner he came in contact with the persons who were residents of State of Himachal Pradesh. Thus there is sufÏcient prima facie material to infer the implication of the petitioner in the crime. In such circumstances, the release of the petitioner on bail will send a negative signal in society, which definitely shall be detrimental to its interest. 10. The prima facie involvement of the petitioner in the dangerous trade of contraband cannot be ignored merely on account of the fact that he has no past criminal history. It cannot be guaranteed that there will be re-indulgence by the petitioner in similar activities, in case he is released on bail.” 18. Similarly, it was held in Bunty Yadav v. State of H.P., 2022 SCC OnLine HP 4996 that even where the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not applicable, the bail cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Each case has to be adjudged on its own facts. It was observed: “6. The quantity involved in the case is 89.89 grams of heroin and 3.90 grams of MDMA. Such quantity may not technically fall under the category of commercial quantity, nevertheless, such quantity cannot be termed to be less by any stretch of the imagination. The evident nature of commercial transactions and dealing with the contraband aggravates the situation for the petitioner. In case, where Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not applicable, the bail cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The fate depends on the facts of each and every case. 7. The menace of drug addiction, especially in the adolescents and students has seriously eroded into the fabric of the society, putting the future generation as well as the prospects of future nation building into serious peril.” 19. The fate depends on the facts of each and every case. 7. The menace of drug addiction, especially in the adolescents and students has seriously eroded into the fabric of the society, putting the future generation as well as the prospects of future nation building into serious peril.” 19. Karnataka High Court took a similar view in Sri. Thaha Ummer vs Union of India Criminal Petition No.9450/2022 decided on 09-11-2022 and held that merely because Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not apply, a person involved in the commission of an offence punishable under the NDPS Act cannot be released on bail as a matter of right. 20. In the present case, the petitioner was involved in the commission of an offence earlier, which makes it highly likely that he can indulge in the commission of a similar offence in case of his release on bail; hence, the petitioner cannot be released on bail at this stage. 21. Consequently, the present petition fails, and the same is dismissed.