SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS BA1 No. 2411 of 2024 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Karan Anand, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. V.S. Pal, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. The present applicant ‘Indermani Belwal’ S/o Gunanand Belwal is praying for regular bail in relation to First Information Report dated 02.05.2024 bearing FIR No. 0103 of 2024 P.S. Cantt, District Dehradun, wherein, the present applicant along with one Bhaskar @ Hirodh Singh were implicated for the offences punishable under Sections 8/20/29/27-A/60 of NDPS Act. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated and is languishing in jail since 02.05.2024 and have no previous criminal history. 5. He further submits that the chargesheet has already been filed and as such there is no need of custodial interrogation of the present applicant. He further argued that the alleged contraband charas, which is shown to be recovered from the present applicant, is 12 kg 12 gms, which is a commercial quantity and as such Section 37 of NDPS Act will come into his way while seeking bail. In reference to Section 37 of NDPS Act he submits that there is no substantial compliance of Section 52A since after search and seizure no inventory was prepared, a specific averment has been made in paragraph-10 of the bail application, which has not been denied. He submits that since in terms of Section 52A(4) of NDPS Act the materials collected are the primary evidence and since inventory is not prepared, therefore, the applicant cannot be held to be guilty for the offences as alleged. 6. Apart from this, he submits that the applicant have no previous criminal history and if the applicant is bailed out then there is less possibility that the applicant will involve in the similar offence in future. He submits that since the twin conditions as stipulated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act has been complied with and as such the applicant deserves for bail. 7. On the other side, Mr. V.S. Pal, learned A.G.A. submits that in this case after search and seizure the inventory was not prepared but non-preparation of inventory is not fatal and applicant does not deserve for bail in terms of Section 37 of NDPS Act. He further submits that the applicant has no previous criminal history and the chargesheet has already been filed and as such there is no need of the custodial interrogation of the present applicant. 8. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and further taking into consideration that in the present case since no inventory was prepared after search and seizure and as such this court is of the view that there are the reasonable grounds that the applicant is not guilty of the offence as alleged. Furthermore, since the applicant has no previous criminal history and as such if the applicant is bailed out then there is no possibility that he will be indulged in such criminal activities in future, thus, since twin conditions as stipulated under Section 37 of NDPS are complied with, this court is of the view that the applicant deserves for bail. 9. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case the bail application is allowed. 10. Let the applicant ‘Indermani Belwal’ be released on bail on furnishing his personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. 11. It is made clear that trial court will proceed with the trial without being influenced with the observation and discussions as made above. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 07.07.2025 PR