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 FIR No. 57/2025 dated 20.03.2025 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21 , 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act registered at Police Station Sundernagar, District Mandi. The petitioner is innocent, and he was falsely implicated. As per the prosecution's case, the petitioner was found in possession of six grams of heroin. The heroin was weighed by the learned Magistrate during the proceedings under Section 52A of the NDPS Act, and its weight was found to be 5 grams, which is a small quantity. The petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police party was on patrolling duty on 20 th March, 2025 when they found a car bearing registration no. HP-23 D-4087 parked on the road. The police checked the car in the presence of two independent witnesses. The driver identified himself as Arshad Khan, and the other occupants identified themselves as Rohit Kumar, Anubhav (the present petitioner), Lalit, Nikhil Kumar, and Yugal. The Police checked the vehicle and recovered 6 grams of heroin. The police seized the heroin and arrested the occupants of the car. As per the result of the analysis, it was found to be diacetylmorphine (Heroin). Hence, the status report. 3. I have heard Mr. Kamal Kant, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State. 4. Mr. Kamal Kant, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The quantity of heroin stated to have been recovered by the police was a small quantity, and the petitioner is entitled to bail as a matter of right. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. He relied upon the judgments of Krishan Gopal vs. State of HP 2019:HHC:10206 , and Minnie Khadim Ali Kuhn vs. State NCT of Delhi WP (Crl) 338/2012 , decided on 08.05.2012, in support of his submission. 5. Mr. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. He relied upon the judgments of Krishan Gopal vs. State of HP 2019:HHC:10206 , and Minnie Khadim Ali Kuhn vs. State NCT of Delhi WP (Crl) 338/2012 , decided on 08.05.2012, in support of his submission. 5. Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner was found in possession of an intermediate quantity of heroin and he cannot claim bail as a matter of right. Heroin is adversely affecting the young generation, and its possession should not be viewed lightly. Therefore, 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 ., ( 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:- “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 an 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 Ahmed versus 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 present in the vehicle from which the heroin was recovered. In Madan Lal versus State of H.P. (2003) 7 SCC 465 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1664: 2003 SCC OnLineSC 874 , the contraband was recovered from a vehicle, and it was held that all the occupants of the vehicle would be in conscious possession of the contraband. It was observed: “19. Whether there was conscious possession has to be determined with reference to the factual backdrop. The facts which can be culled out from the evidence on record are that all the accused persons were travelling in a vehicle, and as noted by the trial court, they were known to each other, and it has not been explained or shown as to how they travelled together from the same destination in a vehicle which was not a public vehicle. 20. Section 20(b) makes possession of contraband articles an offence. 20. Section 20(b) makes possession of contraband articles an offence. Section 20 appears in Chapter IV of the Act, which relates to offences for possession of such articles. It is submitted that in order to make the possession illicit, there must be conscious possession. 21. It is highlighted that unless the possession was coupled with the requisite mental element, i.e. conscious possession and not mere custody without awareness of the nature of such possession, Section 20 is not attracted. 22. The expression “possession” is a polymorphous term which assumes different colours in different contexts. It may carry different meanings in contextually different backgrounds. It is impossible, as was observed in the Supdt. & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, W.B. v. Anil Kumar Bhunja [ (1979) 4 SCC 274 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 1038: AIR 1980 SC 52] to work out a completely logical and precise definition of “possession” uniformly applicable to all situations in the context of all statutes. 23. The word “conscious” means awareness of a particular fact. It is a state of mind which is deliberate or intended. 24. As noted in Gunwantlal v. State of M.P. [ (1972) 2 SCC 194 : 1972 SCC (Cri) 678: AIR 1972 SC 1756 ], possession in a given case need not be physical possession but can be constructive, having power and control over the article in the case in question, while the person to whom physical possession is given holds it subject to that power or control. 25. The word “possession” means the legal right to possession (see Heath v. Drown [(1972) 2 All ER 561: 1973 AC 498: (1972) 2 WLR 1306 (HL)] ). In an interesting case, it was observed that where a person keeps his firearm in his mother's flat, which is safer than his own home, he must be considered to be in possession of the same. (See Sullivan v. Earl of Caithness [(1976) 1 All ER 844: 1976 QB 966 : (1976) 2 WLR 361 (QBD)] .) 26. Once possession is established, the person who claims that it was not a conscious possession has to establish it because how he came to be in possession is within his special knowledge. Section 35 of the Act gives a statutory recognition of this position because of the presumption available in law. Once possession is established, the person who claims that it was not a conscious possession has to establish it because how he came to be in possession is within his special knowledge. Section 35 of the Act gives a statutory recognition of this position because of the presumption available in law. Similar is the position in terms of Section 54, where also presumption is available to be drawn from possession of illicit articles. 27. In the factual scenario of the present case, not only possession but conscious possession has been established. It has not been shown by the accused-appellants that the possession was not conscious in the logical background of Sections 35 and 54 of the Act.” 12. The petitioner was present in the vehicle from which recovery was effected; hence, the petitioner was prima facie in possession of the heroin. 13. A certified copy of the order passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sundar Nagar shows that the quantity of heroin was found to be 5 grams. It was submitted that the quantity of 5 grams is small. This submission is not acceptable. Section 2 (xxiiia) of the NDPS Act defines the term small quantity as under: (xxiiia) “small quantity”, in relation to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, means any quantity lesser than the quantity specified by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette 14. It was laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Ratto vs. State of H.P. (13.06.2003 - HPHC): MANU/HP/0088/2003 that the provisions of the NDPS Act are to be given their simple and grammatical meaning. It was observed: “20. In our considered view, "quantity greater than" has to be given its simple and grammatical meaning. The reason is that there is no ambiguity in these words. Nor can they be given any other meaning than the one as are understood in the common parlance. We further feel that these words are not capable of being interpreted in any other manner except that commercial quantity as notified by the Central Government has to be greater than or to say more than/bigger than/larger than one kg. 21. For holding so, we are of the view that the legislature was well aware when the words "greater than" were incorporated in the sub-section, as also about its meaning. 21. For holding so, we are of the view that the legislature was well aware when the words "greater than" were incorporated in the sub-section, as also about its meaning. There can hardly be any other purpose, import or meaning that can be attributed to the words quantity greater than used in the aforesaid sub-section. Thus, there is no ambiguity while examining this provision of law.” 15. It was further held that the notification issued by the Central Government has to be read harmoniously with the words of the statute. It was observed: “41. As already noted, there is hardly any ambiguity, much less conflict between Section 2(viia) and the notification as extracted here-in-above for determination of what would be the commercial quantity. By virtue of powers conferred under Sub-section (viia) of Section 2, the Central Government is authorised to notify as to what would be the commercial quantity. Because the "commercial quantity" on a plain reading of its definition amongst other things has to be "...greater than the quantity specified by the Central Government by notification....". Under the 2001 Act notification supra was issued specifying the quantity for the purpose of Section 2(viia) of the Act. A perusal of this notification indicates that the quantity specified is one kilogram. Various columns of the notification extracted hereinabove have to be read in conjunction with the substantive provision of Section 2(viia) of the Act. This also puts a harmonious construction on both, notification as well as Section 2(viia). While determining the quantity under this sub-section, it has to be greater than one kg. There is hardly any doubt regarding either the words one kg.", or the "commercial quantity" which has to be "greater than", which in our considered view would always mean any quantity more than/bigger than/larger than one kg. We are further of the view that this provision, and for that matter, notification admits of no other interpretation on its reading. Thus, it cannot be said that one Kg would be the commercial quantity for the purpose of Section 2(viia), as added by the 2001 Act. 42. Another reason to take this view is that the substantive and main provision of the Act is Section 2(viia), which is the subject matter of the discussion in this judgment. Thus, it cannot be said that one Kg would be the commercial quantity for the purpose of Section 2(viia), as added by the 2001 Act. 42. Another reason to take this view is that the substantive and main provision of the Act is Section 2(viia), which is the subject matter of the discussion in this judgment. It is also well well-known and accepted rule of interpretation of statutes that rules, regulations, as well as notifications issued thereunder are meant to sub-serve the purpose of the main provision of law and not the other way round. Notification in the instant case, as extracted hereinabove, is a delegated legislation. Therefore, it can in no case bypass or override the substantive provision of law, and in case of conflict, delegated legislation has to give way to the main provision of law. 43. In this behalf, we may also observe that the legislature in its wisdom has used the words in this sub-section knowing their significance, as well as import and at the cost of repetition, it needs to be noted that when language is clear, then ordinary meaning to the words needs to be given. As such, no aids, either internal or external, need to be pressed into service as was urged on behalf of the Respondent to give another meaning.” 16. It is apparent from that definition that any quantity lesser than that specified by the Central Government is a small quantity. The Central Government has notified 5 grams of heroin as a small quantity. The Cambridge Academic Content Dictionary defines the term less than as “having a smaller number or amount than”. Collins COBUILD Advanced Learner’s Dictionary defines the term less than as “You use less than before a number or amount to say that the actual number or amount is smaller than this.” Merriam Webster’s dictionary defines the term lesser as “of less size, quality, degree, or significance: of lower status”. Oxford Learner’s Dictionary defines the term less as “used with uncountable nouns to mean a smaller amount of”. Thus, it is apparent that the term less is used to denote something of a smaller denomination, and lesser than 5 grams can always mean smaller than 5 grams and never equal to 5 grams. Oxford Learner’s Dictionary defines the term less as “used with uncountable nouns to mean a smaller amount of”. Thus, it is apparent that the term less is used to denote something of a smaller denomination, and lesser than 5 grams can always mean smaller than 5 grams and never equal to 5 grams. Therefore, the submission that 5 grams will be a small quantity is contrary to the definition of a small quantity provided in the NDPS Act and is not acceptable. 17. The petitioner asserted that he is a resident of Sundar Nagar. This was not stated to be incorrect in the status report. He further asserted that he did not have any criminal antecedents. This was admitted to be correct in the status report, and it was stated that no case was registered against the petitioner before the present case. 18. The status report shows that the result from FSL is awaited. This means that the chargesheet has not been prepared. It will take some time to file the chargesheet and thereafter to conclude the trial. The petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars indefinitely, hoping for an early filing of the chargesheet and early conclusion of the trial. Therefore, the petitioner deserves to be released on bail. 19. It was submitted that the petitioner will intimidate the witnesses. This apprehension can be removed by imposing the condition, and it is not sufficient to deny bail to the petitioner. 20. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. While on bail, the petitioner will abide by the following conditions: (i) The petitioner will not intimidate the witnesses, nor will he influence any evidence in any manner whatsoever. (ii) The petitioner shall attend the trial and will not seek unnecessary adjournments. (iii) The petitioner will not leave the present address for a continuous period of seven days without furnishing the address of the intended visit to the concerned Police Station and the Court. (ii) The petitioner shall attend the trial and will not seek unnecessary adjournments. (iii) The petitioner will not leave the present address for a continuous period of seven days without furnishing the address of the intended visit to the concerned Police Station and the Court. (iv) The petitioner will surrender his passport, if any, to the Court; and (v) The petitioner will furnish his mobile number and social media contact to the Police and the Court and will abide by the summons/notices received from the Police/Court through SMS/WhatsApp/Social Media Account. In case of any change in the mobile number or social media accounts, the same will be intimated to the Police/Court within five days from the date of the change. 21. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty or violates any of the conditions imposed upon him, the investigating agency shall be free to move the Court for cancellation of the bail. 22. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the case's merits. 23. The petition stands accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent, Sub Jail, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. and the learned Trial Court by FASTER. 24. A downloaded copy of this order shall be accepted by the learned Trial Court while accepting the bail bonds from the petitioner, and in case said Court intends to ascertain the veracity of the downloaded copy of the order presented to it, the same may be ascertained from the Official website of this Court.