JUDGMENT : Ranjan Sharma, J. Bail petitioner [Sonu], being in custody since 20.11.2023 has come up before this Court, seeking regular bail, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , (referred to as BNSS ) originating from FIR No. 152 of 2023 dated 20.11.2023, registered at Police Station Gagret, District Una, [H.P.], under Section 21 , 25 , 61 and 85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (referred to as the NDPS Act). FACTUAL MATRIX 2. Case set up by Learned Senior Counsel, is that on 20.11.2023, while the police party was on patrolling in Banne Di Hatti area on the main road to Gagret near Industrial Area, Ambota, they received a secret information at 3:50 pm, that a person sitting on the driver seat in vehicle was carrying huge quantity of contraband, beneath the driver’s seat. On reaching, the spot at about 5:15 pm, the police, on disclosure of their identity, found the bail petitioner [Sonu] to be sitting on the driver’s seat. Thereafter, vehicle was searched and a polythene bag was found, containing two other plastic bags, one containing red coloured plastic polythene containing yellowish wet material and in the other transparent plastic envelope containing pink coloured powder in the second bag. On weighing the yellowish material was found to be Chitta, weighing 83.28 gms and the other pink powder was found to be Smack/Heroin weighing 94.72 gms, thus, total contraband which was recovered was 173.48 gms, from the bail petitioner. 2(i). After registration of FIR No.152/2023 dated 20.11.2023, the bail petitioner was arrested on 20.11.2023. After his arrest, the bail petitioner moved an application for bail vide Bail Application Registration No.47/2024 on 12.01.2024, before the Learned Special Judge (1), Una, District Una [H.P.] but the bail application was rejected on 20.02.2024, vide [Annexure P-2], annexed with the case records. Consequent upon the rejection of bail by the Learned Trial Court, the petitioner moved applications for bail before this Court vide Cr.MP(M) No.322 of 2024, which was dismissed on 24/26.04.2024 [Annexure A-3] and another application was withdrawn on 30.08.2024 [Annexure A-4]. Thereafter the bail petitioner moved another bail application before Learned Special Judge (1), Una, which was dismissed on 01.10.2024 [Annexure A-5] and another bail petition was dismissed on 05.02.2025 [Annexure A-6]. 2(ii). Case of the petitioner-accused is that, he has been falsely implicated. Thereafter the bail petitioner moved another bail application before Learned Special Judge (1), Una, which was dismissed on 01.10.2024 [Annexure A-5] and another bail petition was dismissed on 05.02.2025 [Annexure A-6]. 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. 2(iii). Learned Senior Counsel submits that out of 20 PWs witnesses, only 4 PWs have been examined and the matter is fixed for Prosecution Evidence on 21.04.2025. Instant bail petition has been filed by bail petitioner, through his wife with the prayer for releasing the petitioner on bail. STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES 3. Upon issuance of notice by this Court on 07.03.2025, the respondent-State Authorities filed a Status Report dated 28.03.2025, when with the consent of parties the matter was finally heard. 3(i). Perusal of Status Report reveals that on 20.11.2023 while the police party was on patrolling, near Banne Di Hatti, nearby the industrial area, Ambota on the Gagret road, a secret information was received by the police party at about 3:50 pm, to the effect that a vehicle bearing registration No.RJ-32CA- 8826, is parked near industrial area and the person sitting in driver’s seat has kept huge contraband below the driver’s seat in aforesaid vehicle. Thereafter, the police party, reached the spot at about 5:15 pm and thereafter, the aforesaid vehicle bearing registration No.RJ-32CA-8826 was searched. On searching the vehicle the contraband kept below driver’s seat by him was recovered at instance of bail petitioner. The Status Report reveal that contraband was kept in a polythene, which contained two other plastic polythenes and then contraband was weighed in presence of independent witnesses and the bail petitioner-accused. On searching the vehicle the contraband kept below driver’s seat by him was recovered at instance of bail petitioner. The Status Report reveal that contraband was kept in a polythene, which contained two other plastic polythenes and then contraband was weighed in presence of independent witnesses and the bail petitioner-accused. The contraband weighing 178 gms [i.e. 83.28 gms and 94.72 gms] was recovered at the instance of bail petitioner from beneath the driver’s seat, occupied by the bail petitioner. Status Report reveals that the bail petitioner has acknowledged the recovery, by appending his signatures on the search/recovery memo. 3(ii). It was averred that investigation is complete; and challan/police report has been presented before Learned Special Judge (1), Una. In above background, State Authorities have prayed for the rejection of bail application. 4. Heard, Mr. N.K.Thakur, Learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Karan Veer Singh, Advocate, for petitioner and Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional 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). 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 [Sonu], 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 on 20.11.2023 while the police party was on patrolling, near Banne Di Hatti, nearby the industrial area received by the police party at about 3:50 pm, to the effect that a vehicle bearing registration No.RJ-32CA-8826, is parked near industrial area and the person sitting in driver’s seat has kept huge contraband below driver’s seat in aforesaid vehicle. Thereafter, the police party reached the spot at about 5:15 pm and aforesaid vehicle bearing registration No.RJ-32CA-8826 was searched. On searching the vehicle, the contraband kept below the driver’s seat was recovered at the instance of the bail petitioner. The Status Report reveal that contraband was kept in a polythene, which contained two other plastic polythenes and this contraband, was weighed in presence of the independent witnesses and bail petitioner-accused. The contraband weighing 178 gms [i.e. 83.28 gms and 94.72 gms] was recovered at instance of bail petitioner from beneath the driver’s seat, occupied by the petitioner. After completing codal formalities Rukka was sent to concerned Police Station, leading to registration of the F.I.R. Status Report(s) indicates that recovered contraband. 6(ii). The accusation regarding possession of alleged contraband and 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(iii). After completing codal formalities Rukka was sent to concerned Police Station, leading to registration of the F.I.R. Status Report(s) indicates that recovered contraband. 6(ii). The accusation regarding possession of alleged contraband and 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(iii). Likewise, the accusation under Section 25 of NDPS Act alleging use of vehicle for illegal activities is to be tested, examined and proved by way of evidence during the trial. The continued detention awaiting proof of accusation, after due trial amounts to incarcerating the petitioner by way of a punishment. In these circumstances, the prayer for bail has merit. 6(iv). Since the contraband i.e. Chitta [weighing 83.28 gms] and Smack/Heroin [weighing 94.72 gms] total 173.48 gms, was allegedly recovered from the bail petitioner [Sonu] and alleged contraband falls within the ambit of Intermediate Quantity, 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. 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 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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, the prima facie accusation is to be examined, tested and proved coupled with the fact that presumption of guilt cannot be inferred; and secondly, the Status Report reveals that bail petitioner is in custody since 20.11.2023 and is undergoing incarceration for about one year and four months; and thirdly, even the conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time when out of total 20 PWs, only 4 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, 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 [Sonu] for enlargement on bail carries weight, in peculiar fact-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 [Sonu] on bail, subject to the observance of following conditions:- (i) Respondent-State Authorities shall release bail petitioner [Sonu] 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. Failure to appear in trial, except when exempted shall result in cancellation of the concession of bail as granted by this Court. (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. (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 SHO of Police Station, nearest to his native place i.e. Police Station, Paniyala, Tehsil Kotputli, Jaipur 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. 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, Jaipur, [Rajasthan], for information and with a direction to intimate the SHO, Police Station, Paniyala, Tehsil Kotputli, Jaipur to keep an update on good conduct and behaviour of the bail petitioner [Sonu] in terms of this order. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.